Regarding Homosexuality

[Blunderman]

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.

The next time you try to show someone up, try not to mix contrived references to big Latin words with awful grammar, childish internet memes and juvenile accusations.

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.

The inclusion of transsexuality into the topic is an interesting and highly relevant one, because it calls into question a person's right to choose their own sexuality. Taking into account that norm is not law, there's no way to call any deviation from the norm anything other than just that - a deviation from the norm. This is, however, a statistical observation more than anything else. The question becomes, can I choose to be dysfunctional? If this is to be true, then certainly free will is dysfunctional itself.

There are certain parts of the human biology that have obvious intended functions. If your liver doesn't "clean" your blood, it's dysfunctional. If your stomach doesn't digest food, it's dysfunctional. In evolution, nothing is supposed to do anything, it's just a system that favours the creature(s) with best chances of survival. Since we've invalidated natural selection, it's no longer a relevant aspect in the matter.

There's also the assumption being made that the norm is somehow best. Truly, the average, most normal person is not better at everything than the not normal one. If we discover that, for instance, high functioning Autism is caused by something completely preventable, is that cause enough to rid society of these sometimes fascinating minds? The same then has to be true of any deviation from the norm, including homo- or transsexuality.

Wanting to rid society of its inherent diversity only because something is a deviation from the norm is rather feckless and destructive. Hence, it's important that we never label any of these deviations as "dysfunctional", regardless of how irrelevant it is in practice. An apple is an apple, an orange is an orange.

 

[Blunderman]

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).

If that were to be true, then one would be forced to call many other deviations "dysfunctional". Those who live lives of celibacy, for example. Those who do not want children. Surely, a desire to have kids (coupled with a general appreciation of children) is also necessary.

This is all based on the assumption that everything that does not promote procreation is somehow dysfunctional. Since that is not the only goal of human life, but only a necessity that can be fulfilled in a very wide amount of ways, we really have nothing to gain from instituting such a narrow-minded way of looking at biology, lest we'd have to draw the conclusion that every woman has to give birth to two kids by law or suffer punishment.

 

[John the Gamer]

Maybe you'd feel better if Homosexuals called themselfes bisexual instead. their bevaviour wouldn't change, just how we'd call them.

 

[Amphoteric]

If everyone in the world was female no-one would be able to have children. Does that make being female a dysfunction?

 

[Kurokami]

So I just massquoted everyone here and got a 404 error, I think the word "Fuck" pretty clearly sums that up. I will get around to quoting everyone again when I get back from my Exam tomorrow morning, until then thanks to everyone who has read and posted their opinions.

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.

The Nazis I'm sure also ate food, you got me.

Does it bother you that I would refer to you as 'you' instead of SpiderJerusalem? There was nothing meant by saying them, I don't see why you'd take it that way unless you read it with me already condemned in your mind.

When I come back I'll have more to say, as mentioned earlier I massquoted and ended up screwing it up, so I'll get back to this soon enough. Just noticed quite a few excellent arguments I'd love to get around to responding to.

 

[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.

OT: I can see where you're coming from, OP, and in the strictest sense regarding the continuation of the human species, yes, it could logically be seen as a disfunction. However, humans are far beyond the point of having to worry about dying out, so it's not as much of a concern. Despite this, homosexuality can't really be a disfunction, considering said people of said orientation are very much capable of procreating, and they very well could do so naturally if they so chose.

 

[tzimize]

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)

Interesting post. And while you seem to have caught the ire of the poster below you (and probably a host more), it is an interesting view nonetheless.

I dont know enough about genetics to say wether it is a dysfunction or not. But arguing out of a darwinistic worldview I have no problem to see how you can draw that conclusion, even if it is a conclusion that no doubt will infuriate/hurt a lot of people. But hey, thats what opinions are for

People seem to get gay wether their parents are gay or not. I dont know if there is a gay "gene" to pass on (as I said, dont have a doctorate in genetics), or why people are gay in the first place. It doesnt make any sense from a natural viewpoint (the point of life/nature being to procreate and pass on your genes).

It is not like calling for genocide (you dont want all gays to die I gather...?), and it certainly is nothing like the nazis. Are you out of line in your thinking? Who am I to judge? A lot of people would probably say yes, but so what? Opinions are ok to have, if you want to hate gays/jews/pandas/whatever thats up to you and I dont care (notice I am not accusing you of hating anyone, I am generalizing). Actually doing stuff might not be ok though. Beating up someone because he is gay is not ok (but then beating up someone is usually not ok anyway).

Now, wether it would be correct (morally or whatever) to use a "cure" against homosexuality...I dont know. It certainly would not be very ok to use it on people that didnt want it. But using it on people that dont want to be gay? Sure.

 

[i7omahawki]

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

Your basic point, then, is that homosexuals can't reproduce? Well...that's true. Completely correct, biologically and medically accurate. Dysfunction probably isn't the right word, and some may be offended by it (possibly without reading the whole post) but what you're saying is basically correct.

However, some evolutionary scientists believe that, far from being a dysfunction, homosexuality can arise in order to 'cool off' the reproduction of the tribe, pack, whatever. This, is why I don't understand gay-bashing at the moment (I'm not suggesting thats what you're doing). Surely, the very last thing we need right now is MORE PEOPLE. So, the more gay people around, the less that is naturally going to happen.

Another point, which I think is of interest, is that gay-couples, as you say, have to pay for expensive procedures/go through adoption in order to get a baby. Again, to me, this comes as a huuuuge positive, in terms of baby welfare. Firstly, because the couple has to be finacially stable (not a necessary condition for raising a happy baby, but it certainly helps) but also, that they CAN'T do it by accident.

Gay parents, therefore, have made a conscious decision, and have had the perseverance to make it happen.

Rather than being a dysfunction then, I'd say it is a hell of a positive if we want to improve the quality of people's lives.

 

[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.

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'.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

, 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.

 

[Alexnader]

snip
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?[/quote]

4 words

Quickest.Godwin's.Law.Ever

[/quote]

From wiki

Godwin's law does not claim to articulate a fallacy; it is instead framed as a memetic tool to reduce the incidence of inappropriate hyperbolic comparisons.

Just because he likened it to Nazi attitudes doesn't mean he's automatically wrong. In some ways the thoughts of "us" vs "them" can easily lead to such situations as were seen in Nazi Germany. The question is was he correct in making the comparison in this case? I'd probably say no but not because he mentioned hitler, rather because the use of "them" by the OP was not intended to draw a distinction.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

SNIP

You make me laugh... then make me annoyed. I call every group them, be it women, guys, gays, or straight people. I may have taken the wrong idea from this but you seem like some zealous politcal correctness soldier hellbent on removing any kind of names for groups by saying "NAZI!" when ever that comes up. Never ever reference nazis. Ever. It doesnt fly by me. The nazi's exterminated millions of people... it was sick and the worst event in human history and referencing it so casually offends me. Greatly. Stop it. Calling a group "them" and comparing it to that atrocity is disgusting and a stupid exaggeration. I hate it when people go "like hitler" or "like the nazi's". If you actually think about it, its a pretty horrible comparison.

I call everyone "them" in casual conversation, look in a dictionary, it has NO affiliation with nazi's or singling people out, its a word used to reference a group of people regardless of what they are in casual conversation so everyone knows who is being talked about. You seem like someone to read offence or some slur into everything, these people also annoy me greatly. "Them" doesnt have ANY connotations of homophobia. You seem to be trying extra extra hard to see offence where there is none. These people annoy me also. I may be mistaken and im sorry if i am, but the nazi reference got me. Its number 1 on things never to say to me.

 

[Bon_Clay]

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.

 

[RIOgreatescapist]

Gay peeps are as weird to me as goth peeps and other off the chart crazy shit but I don´t mind, they stay in their corner of the world and I'll stay on mine, kinda like a silent contract.

 

[kouriichi]

Eh, theyer gay.
I honestly couldent care what a person's sexual preferance is.
Gay, straight, bi, transgender, its all the same to me. I have friends who are gay, i have friends who are into the "shemale" thing. *shiver*
But i could care less what theyer into. If they invite me to join them in whatever depraved sexual activity theyer into, 11/10 times i will turn them down. ((Yes, 11/10. i will say no even if they dont ask.))
But theyer my friends. I couldent ask for better ones. ((ok, i honestly could, but you know what i mean))