[konvictz0007]

This is a widely debated issue in society and I believe open discussion should be encouraged to find an eventual solution to the problem. It is my intention to impartially assess some of the negative aspects of homosexuality in society in a structured and logical way.

Firstly we must acknowledge that there is no conclusive evidence as of yet whether homosexuality is a choice or not, this is backed up by the APA who many believe to be the authority on these matters. The logical thing to do here is assess both cases.

If we are to say one is homosexual not through choice, then this also applies to paedophilia as many people argue that is also without choice. Many people will immediately resort to a weak counter argument saying they cannot be compared because they are not the 'same'. Of course these definitions change over time with a degree of subjectivity. But they can be compared and I quote the following from Wikipedia with a cited source.

Paedophilia can be described as a disorder of sexual preference, phenomenologically similar to a heterosexual or homosexual sexual orientation because it emerges prior or during puberty, and because it is stable over time.

Since they can be compared, it can be observed the contradictory nature in the which both cases are treated. Paedophiles are victimised, criminalised and slandered by society (regardless if they act upon their sexual desires). Why the difference and the double standards? We know it may cause the child harm, but why should a paedophile who is not what he/she is through choice be traumatised?

Many people argue homosexuality is to be accepted because it occurs in nature. That is true, some species do engage in homosexual activities. However in nature we can see things like paedophilia, incest and eating their young occur. Does this justify humans eating their babies or having sexual relations with their family members?

We must also examine that homosexuals are often justified by saying two people in a relationship are not harming anyone therefore why question it. This is no justification as we look at, for example, a homosexual incestuous relationship (e.g. a father and a son engaging in a sexual relationship) we can again apply the same argument saying two individuals are not harming anyone etc however we know that any incestuous homosexual relationship is illegal in this country so why the double standards? A homosexual incestuous relationship will adversely affect at most the amount of people that a homosexual relationship would affect. This is contradictory.

Homo sapiens are defined as species and the definition for a species is:

A group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.

If such a thing exists, the homosexual gene is directly contradicting this definition.

Furthermore if we are to examine the case that homosexuality is not by choice. Then we can define it as a negative genetic mutation in nature as it prevents one from finding a person of the opposite sex attractive and just like other illnesses (such as a person being born with deformed sexual organs) these negative genes must be addressed by doctors and researchers to preserve continuity.

I welcome discussion and aim to respond points which challenge mine. If we do not discuss such matters openly in a civilised manner, we will remain constant and fail to progress.

[Damask-]

Because two gay adults can legally consent, and that's not the case with paedophilia.

[Bulbasaur]

Welcome to your new home. I think you'll fit in just perfectly here.

(Original post by janga921)
I think it is disgusting and should be outlawed, I do not want my children to be exposed to such disgusting practises, it is a national security threat, if this country has too many gays then we will perish as a country.

Totally agree with this. I mean, it's not as if we have a population of over 60 million, of which around ~95% are hetereosexuals, right?

Edit: Lol, deleted his post...

[chickenonsteroids]

I don't understand why it matters whether it's a choice or not anyway. It doesn't really have any basis in the argument. If you decide you discriminate homosexuals because they choose to live a certain lifestyle that doesn't harm anyone... you're unjustified in doing that. If you discriminate them based on something that's natural... you're still unjustified in doing that.

There's no reason not to discriminate against homosexuals because they're humans just like you and I. Why do people still want to do that? The day this becomes a non issue will be a great one.

[4RealBlud]

I accept it. I'm not homo myself, but i'm cool with it. I admit, the idea of two men going homo on each other is rather sickening, but i cant help that as much gay people cant help being gay. At the end of the day, the difference between homophobia and racism is that, racism is discrimination based on a person's race, whilst the other is based on sexuality. At the end of the day, both of them discriminate people for something that they have no choice over. Homosexuality is not a choice. Attraction is not a choice. Peace

[Norton1]

The opening post of this thread is living proof that using vaguely academic language does not make what you're saying intelligent, or indeed coherent.

[NB_ide]

OP makes some valid points - a lot of the arguments "for" homosexuality inevitably also support various other things that we absolutely don't tolerate and continue to find inexplicably revolting.

Personally I don't give a **** about homo sex or homos, but trying to actively justify it and present it as a good, "natural", normal thing never works and always leads to problems/contradictions such as the OP highlighted, which are usually resolved by supporters simply screaming angrily about homophobia.

[Gwilym101]

Your definition of a species is one that is overly simplified and outdated to the point of falsehood. The definition of a species is not set in stone as by the definition you've give, tigers and lions are the same species (they're both big cats that if bred together produce fertile offspring, a liger).

Also there are not negative aspects to homosexuality apart from the discrimination that homophobic societies inflict. Pedophilia is not between two consenting adults by definition. A child can not understand the ramifications of the actions they are doing and no matter the intention of the pedophile are being taken advantage of.

[asdfgah]

(Original post by konvictz0007)
Firstly we must acknowledge that there is no conclusive evidence as of yet whether homosexuality is a choice or not, this is backed up by the APA who many believe to be the authority on these matters. The logical thing to do here is assess both cases.

If we are to say one is homosexual not through choice, then this also applies to paedophilia as many people argue that is also without choice. Many people will immediately resort to a weak counter argument saying they cannot be compared because they are not the 'same'. Of course these definitions change over time with a degree of subjectivity. But they can be compared and I quote the following from Wikipedia with a cited source.

Since they can be compared, it can be observed the contradictory nature in the which both cases are treated. Paedophiles are victimised, criminalised and slandered by society (regardless if they act upon their sexual desires). Why the difference and the double standards? We know it may cause the child harm, but why should a paedophile who is not what he/she is through choice be traumatised?

Personally, I don't believe that paedophiles should be victimised/criminalised unless they act on their desires. If they do act on their desires, they are criminals but this is because they have participated in child abuse. Adults in a consensual gay relationship are not doing this, hence they should not be criminalised. The double standard only exists if you wish to criminalise paedophiles for their desires alone. That seems crazy, in general we only punish people for that which they have control over.

(Original post by konvictz0007)
Many people argue homosexuality is to be accepted because it occurs in nature. That is true, some species do engage in homosexual activities. However in nature we can see things like paedophilia, incest and eating their young occur. Does this justify humans eating their babies or having sexual relations with their family members?

I have only heard the "it occurs in nature" argument as a response to the argument that homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural.

Homosexuality is not unnatural. This does not prove that it is morally justified, but it does mean that you can't argue against homosexuality by saying that it is unnatural.

(Original post by konvictz0007)
We must also examine that homosexuals are often justified by saying two people in a relationship are not harming anyone therefore why question it. This is no justification as we look at, for example, a homosexual incestuous relationship (e.g. a father and a son engaging in a sexual relationship) we can again apply the same argument saying two individuals are not harming anyone etc however we know that any incestuous homosexual relationship is illegal in this country so why the double standards? A homosexual incestuous relationship will adversely affect at most the amount of people that a homosexual relationship would affect. This is contradictory.

An incestuous relationship between a father and underage son would be immoral because the son is unable to give informed consent. Both partners in an adult gay relationship are (unless there are other factors) capable of informed consent. Hence the situations are incomparable.

(Original post by konvictz0007)
Homo sapiens are defined as species and the definition for a species is:

If such a thing exists, the homosexual gene is directly contradicting this definition.

What about infertile people?

Plus, species are defined by the capability to breed, not by the breeding itself. Homosexual people are equally capable of breeding, they just don't do so. How do you feel about the use of contraception? Does this also violate the definition of a species.

(Original post by konvictz0007)
Furthermore if we are to examine the case that homosexuality is not by choice. Then we can define it as a negative genetic mutation in nature as it prevents one from finding a person of the opposite sex attractive and just like other illnesses (such as a person being born with deformed sexual organs) these negative genes must be addressed by doctors and researchers to preserve continuity.

The human race is currently expanding too fast for world to cope with. Having a few people who do not breed is seriously not a big deal, in fact it could be helpful. We do need some form of population control.

[NB_ide]

(Original post by asdfgah)
An incestuous relationship between a father and underage son would be immoral because the son is unable to give informed consent. Both partners in an adult gay relationship are (unless there are other factors) capable of informed consent. Hence the situations are incomparable.

He didn't specify an underage son. Incestuous relationships involving people of any age are socially and usually legally forbidden.

[tufc]

The acceptance of homosexuality in society is one of society's greatest ills; the loss of its traditional stigma has promoted an 'anything goes' ethos across the whole of society, destroying the traditional family values that have always underpinned society.

[janga921]

(Original post by Bulbasaur)
Welcome to your new home. I think you'll fit in just perfectly here.



Totally agree with this. I mean, it's not as if we have a population of over 60 million, of which around ~95% are hetereosexuals, right?

Is aid if there are too many gays, they gay population is expanding, and this animalistic behaviour should be outlawed

[Ayshizzle]

(Original post by konvictz0007)
If we are to say one is homosexual not through choice, then this also applies to paedophilia as many people argue that is also without choice. Many people will immediately resort to a weak counter argument saying they cannot be compared because they are not the 'same'. Of course these definitions change over time with a degree of subjectivity. But they can be compared and I quote the following from Wikipedia with a cited source.

I'd say the reason they are incomparable is not because they are "not the same", but because a paedophile abusing a child causes harm, and the child cannot give informed consent. 2 homosexual adults in a loving relationship can give consent, and do not cause harm to either party- do you see the difference?

We must also examine that homosexuals are often justified by saying two people in a relationship are not harming anyone therefore why question it. This is no justification as we look at, for example, a homosexual incestuous relationship (e.g. a father and a son engaging in a sexual relationship) we can again apply the same argument saying two individuals are not harming anyone etc however we know that any incestuous homosexual relationship is illegal in this country so why the double standards? A homosexual incestuous relationship will adversely affect at most the amount of people that a homosexual relationship would affect. This is contradictory.

You have mixed homosexuality and incest together. I thought this thread was about homosexuals and not incest? Please demonstrate how a homosexual relationship between 2 consenting (unrelated) adults can back up this argument you have used.

Homo sapiens are defined as species and the definition for a species is:



If such a thing exists, the homosexual gene is directly contradicting this definition.

Furthermore if we are to examine the case that homosexuality is not by choice. Then we can define it as a negative genetic mutation in nature as it prevents one from finding a person of the opposite sex attractive and just like other illnesses (such as a person being born with deformed sexual organs) these negative genes must be addressed by doctors and researchers to preserve continuity.
.

Have you considered that the possible genetic components of homosexuality have been introduced into populations as a method of population control?

[Bellissima]

i gay people because i people and being gay has nothing to do with that and makes you no different to anyone... and even if it DID make you different it wouldn't be a negative difference e.g. psychopaths so.... yeah.

[derangedyoshi]

(Original post by konvictz0007)
This is a widely debated issue in society and I believe open discussion should be encouraged to find an eventual solution to the problem. It is my intention to impartially assess some of the negative aspects of homosexuality in society in a structured and logical way.

Firstly we must acknowledge that there is no conclusive evidence as of yet whether homosexuality is a choice or not, this is backed up by the APA who many believe to be the authority on these matters. The logical thing to do here is assess both cases.

If we are to say one is homosexual not through choice, then this also applies to paedophilia as many people argue that is also without choice. Many people will immediately resort to a weak counter argument saying they cannot be compared because they are not the 'same'. Of course these definitions change over time with a degree of subjectivity. But they can be compared and I quote the following from Wikipedia with a cited source.



Since they can be compared, it can be observed the contradictory nature in the which both cases are treated. Paedophiles are victimised, criminalised and slandered by society (regardless if they act upon their sexual desires). Why the difference and the double standards? We know it may cause the child harm, but why should a paedophile who is not what he/she is through choice be traumatised?

Many people argue homosexuality is to be accepted because it occurs in nature. That is true, some species do engage in homosexual activities. However in nature we can see things like paedophilia, incest and eating their young occur. Does this justify humans eating their babies or having sexual relations with their family members?

I would agree that someone who is attracted to children but doesn't act on it deserves pity and help, not revulsion and condemnation.

However, the reason that comparisons to paedophilia are so pointless is that paedophilia severely damages the children involved. They cannot consent to sex and there is plenty of psychological evidence that they can be scarred for life by such incidents. There is no such negativity involved with consensual sex between two men or two women.

The argument about homosexuality occuring in nature is usually just used to refute idiots who say it is unnatural, which by definition it isn't. There are better reasons to *accept* it.

We must also examine that homosexuals are often justified by saying two people in a relationship are not harming anyone therefore why question it. This is no justification as we look at, for example, a homosexual incestuous relationship (e.g. a father and a son engaging in a sexual relationship) we can again apply the same argument saying two individuals are not harming anyone etc however we know that any incestuous homosexual relationship is illegal in this country so why the double standards? A homosexual incestuous relationship will adversely affect at most the amount of people that a homosexual relationship would affect. This is contradictory.

Ah yes, incest, or "the argument from disgust" as I think of it. I find the idea of a sexual relationship between, say, a father and a son distasteful. But that's not my business, provided both are of age and consent. I'm sure there are plenty of legal relationships which others might find distasteful - look at the media furore over the relationship between Harry Styles and Caroline Flack (are those their names...?) with the big age gap. The law cannot be built on mere distaste.

Homo sapiens are defined as species and the definition for a species is:



If such a thing exists, the homosexual gene is directly contradicting this definition.

Furthermore if we are to examine the case that homosexuality is not by choice. Then we can define it as a negative genetic mutation in nature as it prevents one from finding a person of the opposite sex attractive and just like other illnesses (such as a person being born with deformed sexual organs) these negative genes must be addressed by doctors and researchers to preserve continuity.

I welcome discussion and aim to respond points which challenge mine. If we do not discuss such matters openly in a civilised manner, we will remain constant and fail to progress.

Perhaps if homosexuality could be treated, we might view that as a good thing, although in today's world with overpopulation and the need for adoptive parents we might also view it as a good thing that a section of society is so strongly inclined to adoption rather than procreation. In any case the percentage of people who are gay is not nearly high enough that the survival of the human species is threatened, and since no "cure" for homosexuality exists outwith religious brainwashing which is unsupported by either psychological bodies or indeed any evidence, banging on about how gay people can't procreate is neither useful nor relevant.

[Gales]

I can't people are actually taking this thread seriously.

Don't waste your breath.

[Bulbasaur]

(Original post by janga921)
Is aid if there are too many gays, they gay population is expanding, and this animalistic behaviour should be outlawed

The gay population is not expanding in proportion to the population as a whole. Perhaps more are 'coming out' and being themselves because of the ideals of modern society... but they would have been gay anyway. You probably (almost definitely) have some ancestors who were not heterosexuals, but of course in those times you wouldn't exactly voice it, would you?... So there you have it, you've probably inherited the genes of someone who would have very much enjoyed this 'animalistic behaviour'. How does this make you feel?

(Original post by Gales)
I can't people are actually taking this thread seriously.

Don't waste your breath.

You have a point- there's only so much you can get across to someone who has truly bigoted beliefs instilled in them.

[Gales]

(Original post by tufc)
The acceptance of homosexuality in society is one of society's greatest ills; the loss of its traditional stigma has promoted an 'anything goes' ethos across the whole of society, destroying the traditional family values that have always underpinned society.

Also, can't believe this got 2 positive reps.

[tc92]

I don't really care if someone's gay or not; they should be defined by their character not purely on the basis of the fact they are gay or straight. And I don't particularly want to hear all about anyone's sex life, straight or gay, because I don't care.

[janga921]

(Original post by Bulbasaur)
The gay population is not expanding in proportion to the population as a whole. Perhaps more are 'coming out' and being themselves because of the ideals of modern society... but they would have been gay anyway. You probably (almost definitely) have some ancestors who were not heterosexuals, but of course in those times you wouldn't exactly voice it, would you?... So there you have it, you've probably inherited the genes of someone who would have very much enjoyed this 'animalistic behaviour'. How does this make you feel?



You have a point- there's only so much you can get across to someone who has truly bigoted beliefs instilled in them.

It makes me feel that such animalistic behaviour should be outlawed just like incest.