Regarding Homosexuality

[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.

Why do we have to label things like that? As I said at the top of the page:

I think, for me, the argument here is why is it even necessary to make a distinction of "I have gay friends..." and having a hope (admittedly brought out in a angry-ranty-overtly-passionate way) that we could just move on and say "I have friends that want to meet you" and have the whole sexuality thing not even be an issue or something worth bringing up.

The fact that people here (and most places) need some kind of a label for sexually different people is absurd, because we've gotten over, in most cases, of having to state that label for others of different color or belief.

These "labels" are what most people would call descriptions. Yes, we don't go around saying "Oh, I'm going to hang out with my black friends." However, I'm sure nobody goes around saying the same regarding homosexuals, unless it fit into the context. "Homosexual" isn't a label. It's a word to denote the sexuality involving attraction to those of the same sex. Stop being so sensitive about it. Jesus.

 

[Vryyk]

My opinion is that the government has no right to interfere with the rights of two consenting adults' rights to do as they please as long as they do not interfere with the rights of any individual to do the same. Think how many major conflicts and wars could have been avoided. Governments should HAVE to follow that rule, individuals SHOULD.

 

[ExaltedK9]

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?

Seriously. Way to jump the over-sensetive gun.

 

[emeraldrafael]

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)

mmm.... you;re no wrong. Is is definately a social devience (in the same way tattoos, street racing, and alot of the other stuff we see as cool or normal are based of the definition of social divience in my college sociology book). However you can judge them just becuase they cant have kids. I know plenty of couples where i lived before going to college who didnt want kids, but were perfectly able to breed (that sounds weird to say it like that). Some people just dont like kids. Some people acknowledge they arent good with kids, or arent in a good place to have kids and never are at a point in there life so they decide to not have a child and doom (not a bad thing, just the best word for the context) it to a life they live. Thats alot of preference, especially in american (where i am) society where kids are costly, and having two or more can bankrupt you unless you are substantially well off and/or the kdis make good on return investments (yes, i did just make a child no more worthwhile then a car or house or stock).

So no, you're not wrong, cause its your opinion and you're free to have it. And at least you didnt say you openly hate them, though admittedly saying they're nice to hang with cause they dont steal your girls is kinda dick-ish and bigoted. However, to view them as a dysfunction (the same way you would view a mentally handicapped or physically handicapped) is wrong (not that you should view mental/phys handicapped people as dysfunctional in the first place) simply on the basis that they cant have kids, when people who can have kids but just not to are excluded. maybe you're one of those people who believes it is every couple's duty to bear at least one child, but i dont think thats the greatest idea.

But then again, thats my opinion. I never found anyhting wrong with being homosexual (either gay or lesbian), so i could care less what they do. they're people, they're human beings, and they have rights, they shouldnt be discriminated against or viewed wrongly just because some 2-4k year old book says so.

 

[TeeBs]

The worlds overpopulated, and would be a better place if more people were homosexual.

 

[EqualNOpposite]

There's nothing to suggest homosexuality is a disorder.

I don't think OP means medically. Your logic inversion does make sense, but I think it also proves the silliness of trying to base the whole debate on 'functionality'. The number of things a civilized human does that don't jive with natural instinct towards food, shelter, and baby making would fill a library.

We talk about dysfunction. What's function? What's the norm?

 

[astrav1]

These are my thoughts exactly. When you think about it, it is a dysfunction. Although when you think about all the homosexuals in the world maybe it's evolutions way of helping curb our overpopulation, in which case it is a much better alternative to the invisible hand.

 

[jjofearth]

snip

Oh Christ, three pages and another person that can't backread. Way to go, here's a dunces cap, you win for today! At the risk of not contributing by saying that you, Jjofearth, are not contributing, I think it's worth it.

Oh Christ, four pages in and another person who has a completely valid point and utterly shot me down. Way to go, here's my apologies, I fail for today! At the risk of making myself look like a complete idiot by saying that I'm a complete idiot, I think it's worth it.

...sorry.