Regarding Homosexuality

[Something Amyss]

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.

What about heterosexuals who engage in anal intercourse? Are they dysfunctional? Repeat for oral and any other type of sex that is non vaginal.

Bisexuals: Are they dysfunctional?

Gays who procreate: Are they not dysfunctional, even though they are still gay?

Is masturbation dysfunctional?

Women on birth control?

Celibate people?

Not a flame, just curious as to how you apply this.

 

[Blunderman]

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.

You're missing the point, entirely. Defining something as a "dysfunction" implies that it's something that we should seek treatment for, and something we should treat as worse than the norm. You're also speculating the causes of it, as if it's a response to something that shouldn't happen, further invalidating homosexuality as a valid way of life. If we did discover that homosexuality was caused by some kind preventable event, is that enough reason to warrant the effective elimination of homosexuality? The same can be said of a whole wealth of other things, one of the most prominent being mental instability leading to creative genius.

You're a bigot in fancy clothes, advocating biological and social communism. And no, this is not coming from someone who takes offense to anything, but from someone who wants to see people be tolerant and accepting of others. How hard is it to let people who aren't hurting anyone be who they are, without feeling a need to have any opinion what so ever on them?

Why does it matter to you if they're dysfunctional or not?

 

[ultimateownage]

Homosexuals are people who are attracted to the same gender rather than the opposite. Nothing more, nothing less.
One could argue that humans basic instinct is to reproduce; and that is not possible with a gay man unless he is forced, so in that regard it could be seen as a genetic disability. But even so, we do a lot of things that don't help towards are basic instincts and goals. Masturbation could be condemned with the same argument. Humans are complicated animals, and not everything we do is because of our instincts.

Homosexuals are people like you and I, they have nothing wrong with them. If you think homosexuality is a disability, then no matter how much you deny it, you are a homophobe.
[sub]Sorry if anything in this post was offensive in any way, I'm tired and haven't put much thought into this to think about how offensive it could potentially be.[/sub]

 

[Orange Monkey]

Homoexual male here. I always figured that the best thing to do would be adopt, there are so many lonely abandoned children with no homes who are lumped together like numbers on a page. I would much rather give one of those children a warm loving home than bring a new child into the world.
But in all honesty I don't believe a ''cure'' would even work. Even if you could change a person to be attracted to the opposite sex, they would still have the memory of what they've done, and who they were before, and I believe that that knowledge could be downright traumatic for a person. It might cause more harm than good, if it could even be called good. and What if say the world is ever drastically overpopulated, couldn't homosexuality be viewed as an evolutionary response to discourage any more childbirth temporarily?

 

[Juggern4ut20]

You're a bigot in fancy clothes, advocating biological and social communism. And no, this is not coming from someone who takes offense to anything, but from someone who wants to see people be tolerant and accepting of others. How hard is it to let people who aren't hurting anyone be who they are, without feeling a need to have any opinion what so ever on them?

Why does it matter to you if they're dysfunctional or not?

First of all, LOL UMAD. Second of all, I never brought up anything about changing or fixing anyone and i even went out of my way saying that the very idea of it being a defect really does not hold any weight or water in the real world, or maybe your furious red eyes did not bother reading that far down and you just jumped to some defensive hate you keep boiled up. Your lack of a real response and doing exactly what i blamed others, taking a discussion that should be argued impersonally and attaching personal feelings to it, is exactly why people like the OP are afraid to bring this up. Also, when does defining something as a "dysfunction" imply that we should seek treatment for it? All i said was that it is a dysfunction because it would impair a persons ability to procreate, since they would not want to. BUT i also said that idea only applies in theory, like a vacuum look at species and how they evolve, and has no context in deciding how your should treat, act, or make laws against homosexual people in the real world. Fail harder.

 

[Guestyman]

snip

wow... this was derailed early. To start: no, you're not a Nazi or "othering" people by using a collective pronoun the way it is intended. I'll actually try and answer your questions though. To declare my biases up front, I am a bisexual man in a homosexual relationship.

To answer the question "Am I out of line for saying this?" I'd say you're well within your rights to believe whatever you want and say what you believe, but expressing that particular opinion to that particular person was kind of a dick-move and you should apologise if only to clear the air. You were basically calling him disfunctional in a way that harkened back to the days when homosexuality was classified as a psychological disorder. It's not.

As for the genocide question: it's not like calling for genocide, because unless your hypothetical "cure" these people involves a bullet to the head presumably they'll survive the procedure with no noticable changes except to their sexuality.

In answer to the rest of the post, stricly speaking, yes, it's a disfunction. In the same way that all deviations from the platonic ideal human are disfunctions. Your reasoning about the children thing is flawed though. As you said, alternatives like adoption, surrogacy etc. do exist.

There is an added bonus to gay parenting that most people don't consider: It encourages responsible parenting. It's not possible for a gay or lesbian couple to get drunk and accidentally adopt a child, therefore every child raised by a gay family is wanted. Every child raised by a gay family will be raised with all the financial, stress-related, social upheaval related concerns etc. duly considered before this big step is taken. That is not true of every child raised in a heterosexual relationship for precicely the same reason you give for the need to cure homosexuality.

If a person wants children, they will use the ways available to get one. Being gay won't stop that. If someone doesn't want children, then actually their quality of life is threatened by being heterosexual because of the risk of accidental pregnancy associated with their persuing a normal, healthy sex life.

The "Doesn't allow for natural conception of children" argument in favour of curing only stands if you think procreation is the only thing that can give a person's life enjoyment, meaning, and worth.

Think of what you would be doing if you 'cured' same-sex attraction. In the case of a bisexual child, you will be artificially limiting their chances of finding a partner that makes them happy and fulfilled. In the case of a homosexual child, you will be saving them from potential future bullying and ostracism, yes, but bullying isn't an inication of something wrong with the victim, it's an indication of something wrong with the bully. You will also be telling that child that they were broken and needed fixing while at the same time fundamentally uprooting and changing a drastic part of their sexual development. That kind of physiological and psychological trauma is definitely not needed, especially around puberty when sexual development is being uprooted and shaken up enough.

In both cases you would be drastically and fundamentally altering the hormonal and brain chemistry of a person just so it would be easier for them to concieve a child. This at a time when the earth is already beginning to be overpopulated, and children are already going without proper families to raise them.

To conclude: I think you're wrong. I think you're well meaning enough, but the opinions you've expressed have the potential to insult and I certainly don't blame anyone for being offended by the suggestion that homosexuality needs curing. You definitely owe your friend an apology, no matter how immature his reaction was. You're not a Nazi though, and I'm kinda disappointed that what could have been an interesting discussion was derailed so thoroughly on only the second post.

 

[Asuka Soryu]

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.

Not that I'm agreeing with him, but lust and gluttony haven't been seen so prominent.

For eating because you enjoy it, is sort of eating when you're not hungry, becoming bloated and wasting food for a time when it would be needed. Not to mention, the usual 'tastes good' food is usualy bad for you. But don't get me wrong, I to fall into this category.

As for sex because you enjoy it, is really lust and can be seen as bad due to people taking it to far and having sex with multiple partners, getting the title 'slut' or a nice STD.

 

[iLikeHippos]

I wouldn't call it a dysfunction per se, that's when you are incapable one way or another of doing something. And being homsexual isn't one of them.

You could easily, as said, get a surrogate mother or visit a sperm bank to create a child in time, although it won't possibly be of both the 'parents' (homosexual couples) blood since the factor has to go through another potent person one way or another.

That said.... What other is there to discuss?

 

[Blunderman]

First of all, LOL UMAD. Second of all, I never brought up anything about changing or fixing anyone and i even went out of my way saying that the very idea of it being a defect really does not hold any weight or water in the real world, or maybe your furious red eyes did not bother reading that far down and you just jumped to some defensive hate you keep boiled up. Your lack of a real response and doing exactly what i blamed others, taking a discussion that should be argued impersonally and attaching personal feelings to it, is exactly why people like the OP are afraid to bring this up. Also, when does defining something as a "dysfunction" imply that we should seek treatment for it? All i said was that it is a dysfunction because it would impair a persons ability to procreate, since they would not want to. BUT i also said that idea only applies in theory, like a vacuum look at species and how they evolve, and has no context in deciding how your should treat, act, or make laws against homosexual people in the real world. Fail harder.

You do realise that you can't make up your own fantasy about what I said in order to "win" an argument?

Your entire post is just an embarrassing straw man and hence the "fail" is all on your part, friend. Also, in case it's completely lost on you: mature people don't open up their posts with "LOL UMAD".

Edit: Don't bother replying. I really don't care about any juvenile retort you may have in store.

 

['Aredor]

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.

I think it should be used by parents

There's two things that make that comparison invalid: first of all, infertility doesn't have anything to do with who you are and how you behave. If you give your child a drug to cure their infertility, your child will be the same person they were before, only not interfile anymore. If, on the other hand, your cure would change the sexual orientation of your kid, you'd change their entire personality, basically brainwashing the child.

Secondly, would you really want to cure your child's infertility without asking it first? Maybe, once grown up, they'd be really happy not having to worry about protection so much, not everybody wants kids of their own, you know. What I'm saying is the decision should the your child's, and so your child should be allowed to choose whether or not they want that cure for homosexuality.

So the question basically comes down to: Would a homosexual want to take that cure, willingly. I think the answer to that's really obvious, since, as I mentioned, being a homosexual is quite definitive for who you are and what you feel. Unless you're being pressured into it by others (like your parents), you usually wouldn't want to change such a big thing about yourself, just so that you'd be able to procreate naturally (and you could ask yourself whether the result would be natural, anyways). Ask yourself: would you, as a heterosexual, agree to being turned homosexual by a drug, for any reason whatsoever? I can't imagine fathering a natural child of their own would be a strong enough impetus for anyone.

 

[CrystalShadow]

Argh.

As usual this turns into a mess.

Homosexuality is a dysfunction only if you define the terms of what life is about in an incredibly narrow way. (And even then, with evolution you get into arguments about individual selection VS. Group selection.)

Of course, whether or not you can call it a dysfunction or not, homosexuals have it relatively easy there.

If anyone considers it a disorder, they may attempt to 'cure' it, and that can cause a lot of dumb stuff to happen.

But I'm transsexual, and we're kind of screwed either way in this regard.
Since a transsexual tends to require some kind of medical intervention to accomplish some degree of sanity in their life, we have a double-sided problem here.

If being a transsexual is a disorder, then clearly there's something wrong with being one. Surely it should therefore be attempted to 'cure' them right? But considering the way it generally gets looked at, the first thing to come to mind in 'curing' them would be to convince them that they simply have some kind of delusion, and to just accept what their body dictates that they are...

So... That being the case, it causes a lot of grief if people imply you have a mental disorder for feeling that way.
Hence, it'd be preferable to avoid having anyone think of us as having a 'disorder'

However, as if that wasn't bad enough, we do in fact require some degree of medical help in most cases relating to being transsexual.
And if it's not a medically recognised disorder, why would it need medical treatment? So as soon as you attempt to argue that it's not a disorder, you're suddenly faced with the prospect that you then can't get treatment for it either. And even if you can, no insurance will pay for it, and you'll be left without any recourse to anything unless you're lucky and/or have buckets of money.
Which makes it a serious catch 22 situation.

Basically, Whether homosexuality is a disorder or not is a moot point, and thinking of it as one mainly just causes harm.
But for a transsexual the same question causes just as much harm as it does for homosexuality, with the added insult that any attempt to downplay the idea that it's a disorder causes quite a bit of harm as well.

Aaah! It's enough to drive a person insane.

 

[DJDarque]

OP: In the words of Peter Griffin, "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

I guess I can kind of maybe see the logic, but I do not agree with you.

I'm just tired of all these same threads.

 

[Juggern4ut20]

You do realise that you can't make up your own fantasy about what I said in order to "win" an argument?

Your entire post is just an embarrassing straw man and hence the "fail" is all on your part, friend. Also, in case it's completely lost on you: mature people don't open up their posts with "LOL UMAD".

Edit: Don't bother replying. I really don't care about any juvenile retort you may have in store.

LOL, learn to not fail. You were the one that put words in my mouth and started throwing around accusations of my believes. Try to learn to not use argument fallacies, argumentum ad hominem, when attempting to add to a discussion that you are clearly not mature enough to discuss. Nice try buddy, next time be more civil.

 

[WonderDownUnder]

I think that we all need to agree that in this day and age people have the right to have sexual relationships with whomever thay please. Just accept it. Being homosexual isnt a disfunction, but simply some one who prefers the same sex for whatever reason, and I believe that we shouldn't question that, but rather embrace it as a part of society, instead of shunning them and calling them sinners. And might I add that if god creates all men and women, and has planned everyones life before hand, then wasnt it he who has made them, and wanted them, to be homosexuals??? Just saying (Before you ask, I'm athiest) By the way, just unrelated, its religion that makes us question these things, for if there were no religion we wouldn't have half the wars that we had in the past and we wouldnt be talking about these kinds of things, people would just accept them. Unfortunatly humans need to know everything. When they can't figure it out they create stories. And soon those stories become accepted fact, and these problems are created when someone questions or creates their own story. Think about that one.

 

[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?

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.

Except people is, as well as grammatically inappropriate in this case, very non-specific. It's like discussing dogs, but only using the term "animals".

 

[Ipsen]

There is no right or wrong here, just a shitload of ideas and opinions.

Welcome to a forum.

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.

Homosexuality isn't so much dysfunction of reproductive capabilities, but rather a dysfunction of the behavioral effects of sexual attraction (if that can even be considered a dysfunction biologically).

That's my view.

 

[Sparrow]

This doesn't directly relate to the topic of this thread but... what's up with all the gay-based threads today? Seriously, I'm getting worried about what kind of forum I've joined up in here. I don't mind if you all swing that way, I would have just liked a little warning first. [/joke]

But, uh, seriously? I've seen about four homosexuality based threads at the top of the Hot Topics bar.