[ForKicks]

(Original post by NoraHTunis)
It's not mental disorder,
but it's still unnatural.

I struggle with the term unnatural. If they are born that way and it is evident within animals, where does it defy nature? It is all too often claimed that nature is only about individual sexual reproduction. If that were true, how do adoptions happen in nature?

[Inverse]

Could these threads please stop making appearances? It attracts too many brainwashed religious fools.

[Glenbot3000]

(Original post by chefdave)
Homosexuality presents a barrier to procreation and the continuation of life.

To put it another way, if a tiny % of the population were born with a fatal disorder that meant they lacked hunger mechanism we'd have no problem saying there's something medically wrong with them. Well why can't we say something similar about homosexuality? Homosexuality (on one level) is intrinsically anti-life, and as life naturally wants to preserve itself and reproduce it represents something of an aberration.

That's a pretty grotesque view, and I completely abhor your argument. Your logic is frighteningly erroneous, and saying "I have gay friends" doesn't make you any less homophobic.

[chefdave]

(Original post by Glenbot3000)
That's a pretty grotesque view, and I completely abhor your argument. Your logic is frighteningly erroneous, and saying "I have gay friends" doesn't make you any less homophobic.

So the crux of your argument is that I'm "homophobic"? I don't think that even counts as a reasonable response! It smacks of infantile name calling to me. To be phobic of something you need to have an irrational fear of it and as I don't particularly fear (or dislike) gays homophobia is the wrong term anyway. As I stated in the OP I have absolutely no problem with gays, I just wanted to question whether it could be considered a mental/genetic defect: like necrophilia for example or bestiality. If someone found themselves attracted to rotten corpses it would be fair to say they had some type of illness, as an abnormal sexual practice I'd put homosexuality into the same category. Does this mean I want to roll back the clock 50 years and remove equal rights for gays? No. Stop being so dramatic.

[hannahhaworth]

Surely if the anti life argument makes it a mental illness so does being hetero, as without contraception etc, we'd overpopulate ourselves and destroy the world eventually?

[Retrodiction]

(Original post by chefdave)
A story that caught my attention this week was that of a journalist who went undercover to expose a professional psychotherapist over claims she could 'cure' homosexuality.

Personally I don't have a problem with homosexuality (one of my favourite TSR posters is gay, I also believe in the maxim 'live and let live') and anyone who claims they can cure it is probably either deluded or a charlatan. But I have some sympathy with the view that it's a mental illness. Why? Because homosexuality presents a barrier to procreation and the continuation of life.

To put it another way, if a tiny % of the population were born with a fatal disorder that meant they lacked the hunger mechanism we'd have no problem saying there's something medically wrong with them. Well why can't we say something similar about homosexuality? Homosexuality (on one level) is intrinsically anti-life, and as life naturally wants to preserve itself and reproduce it represents something of an aberration.

http://www.channel4.com/news/gay-cur...nst-suspension

Homosexuality isn't the lack of desire to have children, it's the lack of sexual and emotional attraction to members of the opposite sex. Homosexuals can and often do still have children, the only difference is that the most common method is circumvented. By your logic heterosexuals who don't really fancy the idea of having children would be deemed mentally ill, and this is clearly just silliness. Only a person who believes that attraction to the opposite sex is 'correct', whatever this may mean, could suggest that it is a mental illness, because the argument regarding procreation just doesn't hold any water when thought about in any depth, as I've hopefully just shown.

[PJAdams]

Homosexuality certainly isn't a mental illness. It's just a way of being. It's a weapon used by ignorant, homophobic people who assume that all other ways of being render you insane.

I was disgusted recently by watching a 1960s "educational" video from the US, called "Boys Beware", in which boys are warned to avoid being confronted by middle aged men who want to hang out with them loads. The video was actually supposed to be about pedophiles but it labelled the stalking man a homosexual.

If anyone tells you being gay/lesbian/bi is a mental illness, you can be sure that this very person is themselves mentally ill, because they are unable to cope with the idea that there are other ways of being.

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by chefdave)
Because homosexuality presents a barrier to procreation and the continuation of life.

To put it another way, if a tiny % of the population were born with a fatal disorder that meant they lacked the hunger mechanism we'd have no problem saying there's something medically wrong with them. Well why can't we say something similar about homosexuality? Homosexuality (on one level) is intrinsically anti-life, and as life naturally wants to preserve itself and reproduce it represents something of an aberration.

This doesn't make any sense at all. My friend is a lesbian and she has a baby. I'm not a lesbian, and I don't want to have kids. Surely by your definition I'm the mentally ill one not partaking in procreation, and she has procreated so she isn't the mentally ill one. But she's the gay one and I'm not...

[Tom26070]

Why label everything?

[Retrodiction]

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
This doesn't make any sense at all. My friend is a lesbian and she has a baby. I'm not a lesbian, and I don't want to have kids. Surely by your definition I'm the mentally ill one not partaking in procreation, and she has procreated so she isn't the mentally ill one. But she's the gay one and I'm not...

Exactly the point I made in post 66 :'D
The belief of the OP is an easy trap to fall into, but a moment's thought usually sorts it out.

[PJAdams]

(Original post by chefdave)
If it came to light that a certain % of non-gay guys just didn't find women attractive I'd be asking what exactly is wrong with them.

I'm not saying they're inferior people, but if someone's sexual preferences deviate from the norm it's not unreasonable to ask "why?"

It's that sort of talk which really pisses some people off. I don't think there is a "norm". In your view, the "norm" is simply "guy sees girl, gets a boner". Try seeing it from the gay person's point of view, because their "norm" would definitely be something different

[soempty]

Well, i think it's a sexual deviation officially, which is derived from having some psychological problems.
Personally i think it's a mental problem which can and should be cured, as it is 1. Unnatural 2. Bad for society as gay people don't produce children or lead to lower amount of children being born, which damages the nation in longer run. 3. Really wastefull as it leads to a lot of debating like that, which is a clear waste of time and effort, which could have been spent on production of goods and services. However my argument has a flaw, which is if gay people have children it's fine to be gay, because they fullfill their duty to society, but i am still against it for reasons 1 and 3.

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by Retrodiction)
Exactly the point I made in post 66 :'D
The belief of the OP is an easy trap to fall into, but a moment's thought usually sorts it out.

I know, I was reiterating. And taking it away from theory and showing an actual example to show it's not just hypothetical
And yes, I'm always hearing people make this 'argument' and it's always crap.

[When you see it...]

(Original post by chefdave)
I'm open to the possibility that not wanting to have sex with the opposite sex is a type of disorder. If someone had no sexual urges whatsoever (i.e not necessarily gay) I'd say they're suffering from a genuine biological problem that may require treatment.

That is not the point. The poster was talking about wanting to have children, not wanting to have sex.

[MrStealYoKuri]

Each to their own... it shouldn't be in the media so much, neither should the normal sexual ****..

[PJAdams]

(Original post by soempty)
Well, i think it's a sexual deviation officially, which is derived from having some psychological problems.
Personally i think it's a mental problem which can and should be cured, as it is 1. Unnatural 2. Bad for society as gay people don't produce children or lead to lower amount of children being born, which damages the nation in longer run. 3. Really wastefull as it leads to a lot of debating like that, which is a clear waste of time and effort, which could have been spent on production of goods and services. However my argument has a flaw, which is if gay people have children it's fine to be gay, because they fullfill their duty to society, but i am still against it for reasons 1 and 3.

You get a lot of stupid hetero people who go and have kids and we hear all about how they and their kids damage the nation and never contribute to society

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by soempty)
Well, i think it's a sexual deviation officially, which is derived from having some psychological problems.

Well officially it isn't.

Personally i think it's a mental problem which can and should be cured, as it is 1. Unnatural

False. Homosexuality appears in many other animal species.

2. Bad for society as gay people don't produce children or lead to lower amount of children being born, which damages the nation in longer run

.

Also false. Gay people can still have children, and they do. And we have an overpopulation problem...
Also, am I 'bad for society' for not wanting kids even though I'm not gay?

3. Really wastefull as it leads to a lot of debating like that, which is a clear waste of time and effort, which could have been spent on production of goods and services.

I don't understand this? This debate is a waste of time which we could have spent working?

However my argument has a flaw, which is if gay people have children it's fine to be gay, because they fullfill their duty to society, but i am still against it for reasons 1 and 3.

I'd like you to clarify 3. for me if you don't mind, but 1. is false so all your hopes are riding on it.

[HarryMWilliams]

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
Well officially it isn't.
Also false. Gay people can still have children, and they do. And we have an overpopulation problem...
Also, am I 'bad for society' for not wanting kids even though I'm not gay?

Not that I am aware of, I can't stand the thought of having children at this point in my life.

Not only do I think I don't have the patience of a saint but they simply don't fit into my plans which raises the question to those in heterosexual relationships who choose not to have children for a variety of reasons, not because they physically CANT but because they dont WANT to, are they bad for society too?

[Retrodiction]

(Original post by soempty)
Well, i think it's a sexual deviation officially, which is derived from having some psychological problems.
Personally i think it's a mental problem which can and should be cured, as it is 1. Unnatural 2. Bad for society as gay people don't produce children or lead to lower amount of children being born, which damages the nation in longer run. 3. Really wastefull as it leads to a lot of debating like that, which is a clear waste of time and effort, which could have been spent on production of goods and services. However my argument has a flaw, which is if gay people have children it's fine to be gay, because they fullfill their duty to society, but i am still against it for reasons 1 and 3.

How can something that occurs within the framework of the natural system be called unnatural? Surely this is a fundamental logical fallacy?

[PJAdams]

(Original post by soempty)
Well, i think it's a sexual deviation officially, which is derived from having some psychological problems.
Personally i think it's a mental problem which can and should be cured, as it is 1. Unnatural 2. Bad for society as gay people don't produce children or lead to lower amount of children being born, which damages the nation in longer run. 3. Really wastefull as it leads to a lot of debating like that, which is a clear waste of time and effort, which could have been spent on production of goods and services. However my argument has a flaw, which is if gay people have children it's fine to be gay, because they fullfill their duty to society, but i am still against it for reasons 1 and 3.

Your name is the very same point to the very argument you present...so empty