Regarding Homosexuality

Recommended Videos

AngloDoom

New member
Aug 2, 2008
2,461
0
0
SpiderJerusalem said:
Valkyrie101 said:
SpiderJerusalem said:
Kurokami said:
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"?
Woah, slow down. I think someone may have been a bit quick to jump on the hate-train there. 'Them' is perfectly reasonable to use in this situation - as it is when dealing with anyone who is different from you or the group you are with. If I'm with friends and another group in the distance is hailing a taxi, I say "lets go ask them if we can join." There is nothing wrong with being 'different'. Saying that everyone is the same is more insulting than saying they are different, but equal. I believe the OP is expression his true opinion in as fair a way as he possibly can considering he clearly knows the amount of grief he's going to get. Don't be so quick to bite his head off and silence him for thinking outside the 'accept-all-without-thought' box we've planted ourselves in to.

At the same time though, I do disagree with the OP here. We've gone far beyond the point of everything having direct biological purpose. Buying expensive clothes that are less protective or warm than some cheaper clothes is as dysfunctional. At this point in time I do not want children, and may never want to. My girlfriend also does not want children, never has, and is getting it made permanent as soon as the doctors will allow her. Her mindset is that, if she wants a child, there are a lot more needy children in the world that need to be adopted by a good parent.

Her view may not be as functional for her own genetic line, but it is certainly functional for society, in my opinion.
 

Spinozaad

New member
Jun 16, 2008
1,107
0
0
SpiderJerusalem said:
Redlin5 said:
SpiderJerusalem said:
Kurokami said:
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.
 

Saboten

New member
Sep 13, 2010
163
0
0
SpiderJerusalem said:
Kurokami said:
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.
If it makes you feel any better, I'm gay and I didn't even notice till you brought it up. And just for the record, I don't really care if people refer to homosexuals as 'them', I refer to tons of things as 'them' or 'that' or what have you. And frankly, I don't believe he was saying it in a demeaning way. He was just saying 'them' so he wouldn't have to say 'homosexual' or 'gay' repetitively.

EDIT: I'm sorry, I just looked at how many people said something about you, you've probably heard what I said a million times, but I had to make my point :/

Kurokami said:
Excuse me for being crass but if a girl is giving you oral sex, she cant get pregnant, but does that make it a dysfunction? I don't believe so.

EDIT: I completely changed my argument, I am tired and I didn't realize quite what I was saying, lol, my bad
 

FallenJellyDoughnut

New member
Jun 28, 2009
2,753
0
0
SpiderJerusalem said:
Kurokami said:
You're already going wrong by calling homosexuals "them".
... What? What's wrong with grouping homosexuals together? (figuratively) unless you're saying something homophobic or offensive I see no problem with calling homosexuals "them" for the purpose of this discussion. Its like saying "Don't call humans "them" because they're all different!"

You sir, are way too PC.
 

AngloDoom

New member
Aug 2, 2008
2,461
0
0
AngloDoom said:
SpiderJerusalem said:
'Them' is perfectly reasonable to use in this situation - as it is when dealing with anyone who is different from you or the group you are with. If I'm with friends and another group in the distance is hailing a taxi, I say "lets go ask them if we can join."
True, but you're arguing a different thing here. Of course you'll say "let's ask them," as in "let's ask those strangers that we don't know", but what's been argued above is people using the thinking of saying "let's ask them" as "let's ask those homosexuals" as if that sexuality was some kind of huge deciding factor in the equation, when it shouldn't at all, because you wouldn't use it as "hey, let's ask those heterosexuals".

It does come down to language, but also, imo, considering the amount of times this subject has been talked here and how the OP has composed his question, it seems to be a part of also the thinking that seems very 1920-ish.
I still don't quite understand, so please bear with me if I'm being slow to grasp your point right.

I still see no problem with saying 'them'. Maybe I'm in a similar mindset to the OP, but if my conversation went:
"I have gay friends, my gay friends would like to meet you and my gay friends will meet up at the park"

...it comes across as highly robotic.

If I was to say:

"I have gay friends, they'd like to meet you, and they'll meet up at the park."

...this is a logical sentence structure. Once the subject of the conversation has been made clear, there is nothing wrong with continuing on a 'they' or 'them' mindset.

Have a look at this sentence now:

"Now I don't hold anything against wizards, to be frank I find them to be refreshing to hang around, generally intelligent."

There is nothing wrong with the above sentence.

I believe the problem lies more with people having the notion that noticing and pointing out the difference between two groups is bad. Yes, while being a wizard may not be all that there is to a person, it is an easy way of pointing them out because - for the majority of society - being a wizard is still different than the norm.

I think the problem here is less language and more people's mindsets being coloured by a view that is different to theirs. I love the fact that the OP has raised this question; we accept every group without thinking these days. This is great, this has gone a long-way against anti-wizard mindsets and making wizards more part of the 'accepted' people of society. However, we do it on impulse without thinking and I am against a knee-jerk reaction to most things. We need to have differing views, to challenge us and make us realise things about ourselves and about our view we may never have considered. Until I started writing this here paragraph, I never realised how much I fear the thought of society turning into a giant like-minded hive that doesn't analyse it's own viewpoints in the slightest.

In the end, if the OP does have some different views about wizards to the rest of us, then he has raised them in a polite, honest way and we can ask no-more of him without asking him to colour his viewpoint to something which coincides with our views by squashing his own without real answers.

If you feel his mindsets on wizards is wrong, then tell him in a more constructive way than comparing him to a Nazi. Maybe this wasn't your intention, but that is certainly how it came across to me.
 

sharpe95th

New member
Dec 2, 2009
44
0
0
Am I the only person that just doesn't give a shit if people are gay or not? There's plenty of far more valid reasons to dislike people regardless of sexuality. I hate Gok Wan but it's not because of where he wants to stick his knob, it's because he's an annorexic predatory camp twat.
 

AndyFromMonday

New member
Feb 5, 2009
3,921
0
0
Kurokami said:
You're saying that you view homosexuals as disfunctional because they cannot produce offspring. Let's turn this logic around. Couples who choose not to have children are disfunctional because whilst they CAN have children they choose not to.

The fact of the matter is we're past the stage in our evolution when our only goal was to produce an offspring and survive the moment we became self aware and as such any argument against homosexuality using this clause is inherently flawed as it does not take in account that. It assumes that humanity's only goal is to produce offspring but, as evidenced by the fact that we're debating this topic, this has changed.

Thinking of human beings as a species bent on furthering our genes instead as of individuals is incorrect 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 illogical.

Also, homosexuals are more likely to adopt. I'd rather have an orphan be raised in a loving environment and end up a productive member of society rather than have another child be born into this world. People seem to forget that that whenever the "well they can't have children!" argument gets thrown around.


Saboten said:
I agree with you, in a sense. I agree homosexuality is a dysfunction, I believe that there's something in the brain that get's messed up and it results in homosexuality when puberty begins (because I feel you cannot be classified as straight or gay until you start having sexual desires).

EDIT: But then again, I'm not an expert and I haven't done the research, it just makes sense to me, you know?
It was once classified as a disorder. However, when no conclusive evidence was provided to support this it was re-classified as a normal variation of human sexual behavior. To quote wiki:

In 1952, when the American Psychiatric Association published its first Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, homosexuality was included as a disorder. Almost immediately, however, that classification began to be subjected to critical scrutiny in research funded by the National Institute of Mental Health. That study and subsequent research consistently failed to produce any empirical or scientific basis for regarding homosexuality as a disorder or abnormality, rather than a normal and healthy sexual orientation. As results from such research accumulated, professionals in medicine, mental health, and the behavioral and social sciences reached the conclusion that it was inaccurate to classify homosexuality as a mental disorder and that the DSM classification reflected untested assumptions based on once-prevalent social norms and clinical impressions from unrepresentative samples comprising patients seeking therapy and individuals whose conduct brought them into the criminal justice system.
In recognition of the scientific evidence, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the DSM in 1973, stating that ?homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities.? After thoroughly reviewing the scientific data, the American Psychological Association adopted the same position in 1975, and urged all mental health professionals ?to take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with homosexual orientations.? The National Association of Social Workers has adopted a similar policy.
Thus, mental health professionals and researchers have long recognized that being homosexual poses no inherent obstacle to leading a happy, healthy, and productive life, and that the vast majority of gay and lesbian people function well in the full array of social institutions and interpersonal relationships.

The research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality. The longstanding consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions is that homosexuality per se is a normal and positive variation of human sexual orientation.[60] There is now a large body of research evidence that indicates that being gay, lesbian or bisexual is compatible with normal mental health and social adjustment.[59] The World Health Organization's ICD-9 (1977) listed homosexuality as a mental illness; it was removed from the ICD-10, endorsed by the Forty-third World Health Assembly on May 17, 1990.[61][62] Like the DSM-II, the ICD-10 added ego-dystonic sexual orientation to the list, which refers to people who want to change their gender identities or sexual orientation because of a psychological or behavioral disorder (F66.1). The Chinese Society of Psychiatry removed homosexuality from its Chinese Classification of Mental Disorders in 2001 after five years of study by the association.[63] According to the Royal College of Psychiatrists "This unfortunate history demonstrates how marginalisation of a group of people who have a particular personality feature (in this case homosexuality) can lead to harmful medical practice and a basis for discrimination in society.[59] There is now a large body of research evidence that indicates that being gay, lesbian or bisexual is compatible with normal mental health and social adjustment. However, the experiences of discrimination in society and possible rejection by friends, families and others, such as employers, means that some LGB people experience a greater than expected prevalence of mental health and substance misuse problems. Although there have been claims by conservative political groups in the USA that this higher prevalence of mental health difficulties is confirmation that homosexuality is itself a mental disorder, there is no evidence whatever to substantiate such a claim."[64]
Most lesbian, gay, and bisexual people who seek psychotherapy do so for the same reasons as heterosexual people (stress, relationship difficulties, difficulty adjusting to social or work situations, etc.); their sexual orientation may be of primary, incidental, or no importance to their issues and treatment. Whatever the issue, there is a high risk for anti-gay bias in psychotherapy with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients.[65] Psychological research in this area has been relevant to counteracting prejudicial ("homophobic") attitudes and actions, and to the LGBT rights movement generally.[66]
The appropriate application of affirmative psychotherapy is based on the following scientific facts:[60]
Same-sex sexual attractions, behavior, and orientations per se are normal and positive variants of human sexuality; in other words, they are not indicators of mental or developmental disorders.
Homosexuality and bisexuality are stigmatized, and this stigma can have a variety of negative consequences (e.g., minority stress) throughout the life span (D?Augelli & Patterson, 1995; DiPlacido, 1998; Herek & Garnets, 2007; Meyer, 1995, 2003).
Same-sex sexual attractions and behavior can occur in the context of a variety of sexual orientations and sexual orientation identities (Diamond, 2006; Hoburg et al., 2004; Rust, 1996; Savin-Williams, 2005).
Gay men, lesbians, and bisexual individuals can live satisfying lives as well as form stable, committed relationships and families that are equivalent to heterosexual relationships in essential respects (APA, 2005c; Kurdek, 2001, 2003, 2004; Peplau & Fingerhut, 2007).
There are no empirical studies or peer-reviewed research that support theories attributing same-sex sexual orientation to family dysfunction or trauma (Bell et al., 1981; Bene, 1965; Freund & Blanchard, 1983; Freund & Pinkava, 1961; Hooker, 1969; McCord et al., 1962; D. K. Peters & Cantrell, 1991; Siegelman, 1974, 1981; Townes et al., 1976).


There's nothing to suggest homosexuality is a disorder.
 

Sebenko

New member
Dec 23, 2008
2,531
0
0
Chatney said:
This, this, a thousand times this.

We constantly get these topics, and they're getting a little tired.

I like boning dudes, end of. There is no more discussion to be had on the forums.
 

Megacherv

Kinect Development Sucks...
Sep 24, 2008
2,650
0
0
SpiderJerusalem said:
Captain Pooptits said:
SpiderJerusalem said:
Kurokami said:
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?
4 words

Quickest.Godwin's.Law.Ever

sharpe95th said:
Am I the only person that just doesn't give a shit if people are gay or not? There's plenty of far more valid reasons to dislike people regardless of sexuality. I hate Gok Wan but it's not because of where he wants to stick his knob, it's because he's an annorexic predatory camp twat.
Wow, it's as if the entire country is speaking in-sync with you.
 

Juggern4ut20

New member
Aug 31, 2010
69
0
0
I agree with the OP but for slightly different reasons. I DO see homosexuality as a dysfunction, or defect, on a theoretically level. The reason people are attracted to one another is to procreate and pass along our DNA. Its built into every species to attempt to do this. It's like Darwin's idea. If homosexuality was a trait, then it would not be passed on in great enough numbers, since carriers would have less incentive to procreate, and would eventually die out. Since it hasn't, i think its far to assume its a defect that happens either during the pregnancy, or perhaps also be caused from trauma after birth. Again i want to stress that this is in the realm of theory. In the real world, natural selection no longer applies in the sense that humans can now control their surrounds instead of having to adapt to them. If all humans are meant to do is to survive and mate, then any thing that hinders that could be seen as a dysfunction or defect.

I think too many people, IE nazi card guy, are too quick to jump at this discussion from a personal point of view, which isn't what the post was asking for I assume. I mean getting all riled up over the use of them? Grow some thicker skin because i use that when writing about women, children, elderly, tall people, etc, etc and i sure don't harbor any ill will towards those groups. If you attempt to argue this theoretically, you would see that it is a valid point about homosexuality, however it is an irrelevant point when applied to the real world.