[derangedyoshi]

(Original post by asdfgah)
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.



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.



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.



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.



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.

It looks as if I've copied all the ideas from this post in mine, but I swear I didn't. Great minds think alike...? :P

[Bulbasaur]

(Original post by janga921)
It makes me feel that such animalistic behaviour should be outlawed just like incest.

We've been doing that for centuries. Look where we ended up.

(Original post by Gales)
Also, can't believe this got 2 positive reps.

I thought precisely the same thing.

[Ttawwab]

Come on, OP is either badly trolling, or an idiot. Either way, it's not worth anyone's time.

[FrescoDiMorte]

Im not gay myself but can someone quote me and answer why it bothers people soooooo much that some people are gay ? I mean I would never ever want or accept a guy to hit on me but why do people care ? Its not as if gays are forcing people to become one of them. Why is it a disgrace or an abomination ? And please give me an answer that isn't ''because it's not natural'' stretched into 4 paragraphs ?

[Coke1]

(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?

Edit: Lol, deleted his post...

Exactly. I hate it when people use the 'being gay is a threat to humans becoming extinct' argument. Statistics show that around 5-7% of males, and 2-3% of females are homosexual. Wow Birth control is going down big time. AND they can still have children anyway....

[konvictz0007]

(Original post by asdfgah)
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.



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.



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.



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.



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.

I must disagree with what you are saying, there is at least 1 contradiction in your post. I did not define an age range, but we can assume for continuity that the two persons engaging in the hypothetical incestuous homosexual relationship are both adult and consenting. How specific must one be?

And your point about infertile people, it was probably a negative gene that caused this 'problem' and as an advanced society we must find a way of curing or preventing this 'problem'. It is rather like someone with a broken leg, they may prefer it to be broken for the rest of their life because they may like the idea of a wheelchair but we as an intelligent society know this is counter productive - much like homosexuality in terms of sexual reproduction. (and yes there other ways to reproduce but this is not a practical model for a larger sample of people - and there are a lot of people in the world).

[Flying Cookie]

First of all, despite all the negs you've acquired, I definitely commend your approach.

Regarding the points about pedophilia and incest, I couldn't agree more that they do not harm anyone (if a pedophile abstains ofc) and therefore there is no reason for anyone else to intervene. It might seem untouchable now, but I can see the clear progression of people in the future treating abstaining pedophiles with a gram of respect and dignity, and not staring at incestuous couples (again, within the parameters of no ill children being born of it, for example).

It really is none of anyone's business who someone else may be attracted to. For example, I personally find relationships between people with a big age gap utterly disgusting and despicable, yet I acknowledge the fact that it does no harm and it is people's right to choose.

Now regarding the latter points:

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.

These points exhibit, unfortunately, a very poor grasp of the principles of evolution. It's understandable though, because evolution has been oversimplified for the sake of selling news and mags.

The first point is that the gay gene (assuming there is one) contradicts the principle of reproduction. For a very long time indeed, there are records of homosexuality being manifested in humans, as well as a wide variety of other animals. This suggests that the gay gene must be either neutral or advantageous. There are many theories which suggest advantageous traits deriving from a supposed gay gene. Anything from a better availability for doing anything else (much like some men have had as a result of their "natural" role resulting from not being pregnant/giving birth), to the theory that the gay gene, when passive in a straight person, gives them a reproductive advantage.

What I really must emphasise is that homosexuality by itself is not contradictory with reproduction, any more than not having an orgasm via intercourse would be. It seems impossible for someone to want to have sex in both cases (which could lead to reproduction). But for crying out loud, Homo sapiens also means "the smart one". The smart one finds ways. Physically it is really not that difficult to put sperm in one's vagina without having sex.

So whatever the gay gene is, if it does exist (which I very much doubt), it's certainly not negative. The human genome is amazingly fluid and diverse. In the example of someone with no genitals - it's not as simple as that. Genes don't just operate on individuals, they operate more broadly, so that if the family of someone with no genitals has high reproductive success, then it's likely that someone else down the line will have no genitals.

That's how most genes pass through, generation after generation. Very few genes, really, get selected for or against strongly enough, or for enough time, to actually create real differences over time.

[tazarooni89]

(Original post by asdfgah)
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.

When people say that homosexuality is "unnatural", I don't think that they're talking about whether or not it "occurs in nature". Everything which occurs at all occurs in nature. (Is there even any such thing as "outside of nature"?) People seem to make the mistake of thinking that "nature" here refers to some kind of wilderness environment amongst the trees and animals.

Rather, when people say that homosexuality is "unnatural", what they actually mean is that it is not what the body is designed for. In the same way that, it is unnatural for a lion to eat grass (even though you might still find some of them doing it if you look hard enough), or it is unnatural for a dolphin to live on land (even though in theory, it probably could). Now I agree, this doesn't automatically make something immoral. But "it occurs in nature" is not really an appropriate response. The appropriate response would be "So what if it's unnatural? Unnatural =/= immoral."

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.

The OP did not specify that the son was underage. I believe he is simply referring to an gay incestuous relationship in general. He is saying that there doesn't appear to be any good reason why it should be illegal for a father and son (both adults) to have a gay relationship, while it is legal for two unrelated men (again, both adults) to have a gay relationship.

[tufc]

(Original post by Gales)
Also, can't believe this got 2 positive reps.

It's got 3 now.

[mmmpie]

You made this thread, verbatim, about three months ago.

(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.

The acceptance of free speech 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.

The acceptance of religious freedom 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.

The acceptance of ethnic diversity 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.

The acceptance of contraception 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.

The acceptance of the Norman conquest 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.

The acceptance of Christianity 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.

See how dumb a thing that was to say yet?

[mmmpie]

(Original post by FrescoDiMorte)
Im not gay myself but can someone quote me and answer why it bothers people soooooo much that some people are gay ? I mean I would never ever want or accept a guy to hit on me but why do people care ? Its not as if gays are forcing people to become one of them. Why is it a disgrace or an abomination ? And please give me an answer that isn't ''because it's not natural'' stretched into 4 paragraphs ?

Because

• some people simply need others to hate
• mysoginistic heterosexual males worry that gay men will think of them the way they think of women
• closeted people lash out at openly gay people simply for being open about it and getting on with their lives
• an iron age palestinian didn't like it
• people think that anyone too dissimilar to themselves is pathological
• conservative politicians use it to distract people from more pressing matters
• etc.

It's worrying how many homophobic people seem to spend more time thinking about my sex life than I do.

[ufo2012]

(Original post by 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.

Ditto on this.

Based on all of this though, I don't see how OP can progress to solve this where thousands of others have also failed.

(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.

Nothing wrong with the man speaking his mind with this, he may have a different opinion but everyone has their own.

[ALazyThracian]

My best friend of 19 years just came out and said he was gay and ill tell the OP what i told him.

"Hey it doesn't matter what path you take. Sexual orientation, religion or creed i'll always accept you as my friend and nothing has changed"

You see as humans we fear difference. People arguments of homosexuality is that it isn't naturally acceptable. There is a reason humans are the dominate species of this planet were different. We create bombs that blow up entire cites, we don't hunt for food anymore, we can cure sickness and we can continue evolving and discovering new ways of being dominant.

So my point is homosexuality may not be natural but it causes no harm to population gross in fact there are too many humans on the planet.

[Yoko Ono]

Well, you've convinced me. I now believe that homosexuals (along with paedophiles) are monstrous sexual deviants. But now what should we do? How do you propose we deal with them?

[RandZul'Zorander]

(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?

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:



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.

Just going to point out that the two bolded parts are the only parts that really were relevant. You claim the point of your post and then the rest is extra information that said nothing about 'negative aspects' of homosexuality. And your supposed negative for the human race is actually flawed, as homosexuality has been accounted for in the theories of evolution in many ways. And seeing as a species there are plenty of heterosexuals who produce children and that nowadays homosexuals can produce children, the gene isn't really all that negative. So you haven't 'impartially' examined any negative aspects really. All you have managed to do is create an elaborate troll thread

[tufc]

(Original post by mmmpie)
You made this thread, verbatim, about three months ago.



The acceptance of free speech 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.

The acceptance of religious freedom 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.

The acceptance of ethnic diversity 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.

The acceptance of contraception 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.

The acceptance of the Norman conquest 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.

The acceptance of Christianity 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.

See how dumb a thing that was to say yet?

No, as I don't think that any of those statements are true.

[lightburns]

Paedophiles should not be victimised. Any who hurts a child is a criminal and should be imprisoned. Any who is found to have child porn etc. has done a low crime and should really be helped rather than immediately victimised. There are a great many people who have these desires and how can they really stand up and get help?

Homosexuality is treated differently because homosexuality is consensual.

Homosexuality is deviance from the norm, true. Homosexuality is deviance from the evolutionarily preferable, true. As is choosing to not have kids. But it isn't labelled a disorder because it's quite alright to live with it without any difficulty whatsoever; lifestyle-wise, it's pretty much the same as heterosexuality. Paedophilia, however, is a harmful desire and must be purged, making it a difficult thing for people to live with.
It's like the difference between a fetish for shoes and a fetish for killing people. They are both 'deviances' from standard baby-making sexual habits and the norm, but one is fairly harmless, and the other is non-consensual and illegal.

As their numbers are small, their existence makes no difference to the future of the human race. If they made up most of humanity, then maybe you'd be able to make that point. As it stands, you don't.

[Kiss]

(Original post by Damask-)
Because two gay adults can legally consent, and that's not the case with paedophilia.

You can't consent to your own preferences.

[anarchism101]

OK, so there's no reason why we should ban consensual gay incest. That seems sensible to me.

[seanfromtheblock]

(Original post by Kiss)
You can't consent to your own preferences.

I don't really see how that's relevant?

The poster was saying that homosexual relationships or sexual acts are acceptable, as two adult males can legally consent.

a paedophillic relationship or sexual act would not be acceptable as the child involved would be unable to legally consent.

Nothing was said about the paedophile being able to consent to having that sexual preference.