(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.