The Problem with "Fighting" Homosexuality

[dgirl1986]

You need to redefine a homosexual as a person. Homosexuality is possibly an orientation and definitely a behavior. I have Christian love for the person but not his orientation. The exact same way I take care of alcoholics at my house. I hate their alcoholism but I care about them as a human being. I think your doing a disservice to them by reducing their identity as a human being to an identity as a homosexual. Their is infinity more to a human being that their sexual taste.

Random question....why is it always him/his/anal? Is it gay men that spring to mind when people think of the word homosexuality or is it their butt seks that people think of?

 

[dgirl1986]

It's pure hypocrisy. They like to single out homosexuals, but they ignore all the heterosexual Christians getting divorces, cheating on their spouse or any of the other "sins" from the bible.
Christians love to hate more than anything else. It's easy to hate, but it's way to difficult for them to follow the "turn the other cheek" parts of the bible.

Exactly. It isnt the only type of hypocrisy. Living in sin with a baby before marriage...kicks out partner for coming out as atheist. What the.

 

[Drolefille]

Random question....why is it always him/his/anal? Is it gay men that spring to mind when people think of the word homosexuality or is it their butt seks that people think of?

It is a weird obsession. I know gay men who don't like anal sex and straight couples who love anal sex and lesbian women who penetrate each other and those who don't and non-monosexual people who do any or all of the things they like whatever those may be.

 

[psychoslice]

The church is doing the same as they did with slavery and degrading the negro race, in the near future we will realize that the homosexuals were treated in the same way as slavery, and that this backward teaching belongs back where it came from never to be seen again, as also many other teaching that in time will go through the same process.

 

[SomeRandom]

I made it through 5 of 8 pages before I give up but I just want to add this in here.
If all bees were worker bees, bees would die out. Worker bees are infertile. That doesn't mean that worker bees aren't beneficial and necessary to the bee "community" as it were.
There are suggested evolutionary reasons for non-heterosexuality (even though the modern concept of homosexuality is just that, a modern concept. Every culture perceives these things differently.). It's possible that it's tied to a gene related to having children, it's possible you have better survival rates in children with gay relatives because there are non-child bearing relatives who help to raise the child.
Regardless we're not tied to pure survival any more. We're not immune from natural selection but we do have far more control over our sexual selection and choices than we did before. There's really no point in going "BUT IF EVERYONE WAS GAY" because everyone isn't.

THANK YOU!
I was waiting for someone to address that. Let me add or rather reiterate, if you please, that reproduction is merely one facet of Biological Evolution. Reproduction doesn't actually have anything to do with sexual orientation, perhaps save for inclination. I mean Oscar Wilde had a wife and three kids! He was still quite.......erm Fabulous, if you get my drift.

Survival Strategies are just as important as biological reproduction. I mean any idiot can have sex and give birth, but if you don't have some sort strategy in place, like every species on the planet does, then your offspring won't survive and you're doomed. Reducing Evolution and "natural" down to capability of reproduction whilst keeping intact your sexual behavior with your sexual orientation is at best overtly simplistic. It ignores the importance of keeping your offspring alive, it ignores that information or "passing genetic information" isn't always about linear genetics. Often times the sum is just as important as the individual passing on beneficial genetic traits. For example, there is a hypothesis that posits that homosexuality is beneficial to our survival strategy. Humans are social animals and like most social animals (and even a couple of antisocial ones) our survival strategy relies on us hand rearing our offspring. Humans do this in tribes. If you have a small portion of individuals who are not very inclined to reproduce or even sterile this is actually beneficial to the offspring. You have more protection, more animals providing food and even for a lack of a better term, "back up parents" who can pick up the slack should anything happen. We even have that in modern society. We call that "Foster/Adoptive Parents." This extra layer of protection/food gathers and back up parents gives a boost to the overall survival rate of said offspring. Thereby ensuring not only beneficial genetics are passed on to the next generation, but the sum of the tribe/herd's genetics are also passed on and survive.
I'll leave the floor open to those more learned in matters such as Genetics to explain that further, if they so choose, since that is not my area of expertise.

If everyone were gay, we would not stop reproducing. We might slow down a bit. But all that would happen is Bisexual behavior would increase tenfold and surrogacy would skyrocket. That's it. Hell there's even gay parenting occurring in nature. Like birds for example (especially black swans.......for some reason.)

 

[Drolefille]

THANK YOU!


If everyone were gay, we would not stop reproducing. We might slow down a bit. But all that would happen is Bisexual behavior would increase tenfold and surrogacy would skyrocket. That's it. Hell there's even gay parenting occurring in nature. Like birds for example (especially black swans.......for some reason.)

I just want to pick this tiny piece and make the point that bisexuality - or any sort of polysexuality - is not just behavior but orientation too. Not saying you were disagreeing with that but it's always gay vs. straight in these threads.

~~Pansexual~~

 

[Revoltingest]

"Some" isn't a prefix, it's a word. If you want to be nit picky I can be nit picky, too.

Nitpicking? No....I objected to painting all Xians with an unfairly broad brush of hatred & hypocrisy. To falsely accuse an entire group of such bigotry would be full of irony.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Random question....why is it always him/his/anal? Is it gay men that spring to mind when people think of the word homosexuality or is it their butt seks that people think of?

I think it's the obsession with butt sex. Because to them it seems so foreign and so gross that it actually ends up ensnaring them, and holding a certain power over them that always brings them back to the scenery of this forbidden fruit. Many of them I suspect want more than just the mental scenery.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It's nice to see a happy ending:

'Gay' bull Benjy saved from slaughter by Simpsons creator Sam Simon | Daily Mail Online

 

[SomeRandom]

I just want to pick this tiny piece and make the point that bisexuality - or any sort of polysexuality - is not just behavior but orientation too. Not saying you were disagreeing with that but it's always gay vs. straight in these threads.

~~Pansexual~~

I know I was just saying that bisexual behavior would increase merely due to circumstance and survival, not necessarily that people would become bisexual themselves. You're right of course, Bisexuality is it's own sexual orientation.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I think it's the obsession with butt sex. Because to them it seems so foreign and so gross that it actually ends up ensnaring them, and holding a certain power over them that always brings them back to the scenery of this forbidden fruit. Many of them I suspect want more than just the mental scenery.

I think part of the obsession stems from how women are the only ones who are supposed to be penetrated, that to be penetrated is degrading and feminizing, and that real men are never to be the bottom (ever notice how many people are obsessed with figuring out gender roles even in same sex relationships?).

I also think part of the obsession stems from overly-repressed desires. It spills out from self-loathing so much that it's projectile-vomited onto everybody else.

So in essense, I agree with you.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I just want to pick this tiny piece and make the point that bisexuality - or any sort of polysexuality - is not just behavior but orientation too. Not saying you were disagreeing with that but it's always gay vs. straight in these threads.

~~Pansexual~~

Truth. *fist bump*

 

[1robin]

Random question....why is it always him/his/anal? Is it gay men that spring to mind when people think of the word homosexuality or is it their butt seks that people think of?

I try very hard not to think of it but every orientation has risks that increase suffering without sufficient justification. The one you mentioned just happens to be the most obvious and makes a more emphatic point.

 

[SomeRandom]

I try very hard not to think of it but every orientation has risks that increase suffering without sufficient justification. The one you mentioned just happens to be the most obvious and makes a more emphatic point.

Okay then, fair enough. But why doesn't anal sex automatically come up when discussing heterosexuality then? Not all gay men have anal and many heterosexual couples prefer it to.... well vaginal sex. And just as it is with some gay men, some heterosexual people might be less inclined to use protection when engaging in erm "but secks" thus increasing the risk of STDs and making the act just as "dangerous" regardless of orientation. If as you claim all orientations have risks that increase suffering without justification, why then is heterosexual anal sex frequently (and conveniently) ignored, even though one could argue it is possibly one of the biggest risks in the spread of STI's in heterosexuals apart from say ignorance about the dangers of unprotected oral sex. Whilst everyone always seems to immediately jump on gay males having anal sex? It just seems.......odd and a tad obsessive.

 

[1robin]

Okay then, fair enough. But why doesn't anal sex automatically come up when discussing heterosexuality then? Not all gay men have anal and many heterosexual couples prefer it to.... well vaginal sex. And just as it is with some gay men, some heterosexual people might be less inclined to use protection when engaging in erm "but secks" thus increasing the risk of STDs and making the act just as "dangerous" regardless of orientation. If as you claim all orientations have risks that increase suffering without justification, why then is heterosexual anal sex frequently (and conveniently) ignored, even though one could argue it is possibly one of the biggest risks in the spread of STI's in heterosexuals apart from say ignorance about the dangers of unprotected oral sex. Whilst everyone always seems to immediately jump on gay males having anal sex? It just seems.......odd and a tad obsessive.

I am not really a scholar on the dynamics and history of homosexual debate. I have no way to know why others may argue one way or another.

Keep this in mind. All sex has dangers inherent to it. The difference is that homosexuality has an increased risk over heterosexuality and it lacks any compensating gain to off set the cost. So I am not denying that heterosexuality is free of risk, nor that homosexuality has the same risk in every facet of it. Just as a general behavior homosexuality is not justifiable.

 

[Midnight Rain]

I am not really a scholar on the dynamics and history of homosexual debate. I have no way to know why others may argue one way or another.

Keep this in mind. All sex has dangers inherent to it. The difference is that homosexuality has an increased risk over heterosexuality and it lacks any compensating gain to off set the cost. So I am not denying that heterosexuality is free of risk, nor that homosexuality has the same risk in every facet of it. Just as a general behavior homosexuality is not justifiable.

Would you agree that the difference in risk is not great enough to stop individuals from partaking in it?

There is inherent risk in heterosexual sex. However people still do it. There is (by your definition one that I do not agree too) slightly more risk in homosexual sex. Would it not follow that it would still be alright to continue in that behavior? What would be the limit of "danger" that would stop heterosexuals from having sex in your opinion?

 

[1robin]

Would you agree that the difference in risk is not great enough to stop individuals from partaking in it?

Well I would say humans will endure risks that are completely unjustifiable to gratify all manner of desire. Humans have shown a remarkable capacity to risk everything to be selfish but in most cases little to act selflessly. We are a horribly flawed as moral agents. My argument is about what is justifiable not about what will people do even without justification.

There is inherent risk in heterosexual sex. However people still do it. There is (by your definition one that I do not agree too) slightly more risk in homosexual sex. Would it not follow that it would still be alright to continue in that behavior? What would be the limit of "danger" that would stop heterosexuals from having sex in your opinion?

I have given mountains of stats of all kinds (STD's, unsafe sexual practices, promiscuity, physical damage, spousal abuse, adultery, broken families, length of marriage, etc....) and homosexuality is worse in all of them and in most it is significantly worse. I will not post all those stats again but will give you one as an example. In the US the 4% of us that are gay account for 60% of all new aids cases. How much more obvious and horrific can it get?

Almost all moral reasoning are value judgments. The gain versus the cost determines (at least in theory) what should be permitted. I have no idea what the specific ration should be but homosexuality causes so much harm and has so little justification that it's justifiability is not really even a question. It costs billions, increases suffering by the millions, causes death by the tens of thousands (or more), etc..... and it's only justification is to gratify physical lust in it's sexual component. BTW I am not debating against the orientation, just the sexual behavior. I am also do not justify promiscuity in heterosexuals either.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

So I am not denying that heterosexuality is free of risk, nor that homosexuality has the same risk in every facet of it. Just as a general behavior homosexuality is not justifiable.

I'm puzzled. How do get from a particular behaviour being ( arguably ) more risky to it being unjustifiable?

The roads are busy and it's riskier for me to cycle than to walk, but does that make cycling unjustifiable?

Or is it that really you don't approve of homosexuality and are looking for reasons to justify your disapproval?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I have given mountains of stats of all kinds (STD's, unsafe sexual practices, promiscuity, physical damage, spousal abuse, adultery, broken families, length of marriage, etc....) and homosexuality is worse in all of them and in most it is significantly worse. I will not post all those stats again but will give you one as an example. In the US the 4% of us that are gay account for 60% of all new aids cases. How much more obvious and horrific can it get?

Almost all moral reasoning are value judgments. The gain versus the cost determines (at least in theory) what should be permitted. I have no idea what the specific ration should be but homosexuality causes so much harm and has so little justification that it's justifiability is not really even a question. It costs billions, increases suffering by the millions, causes death by the tens of thousands (or more), etc..... and it's only justification is to gratify physical lust in it's sexual component. BTW I am not debating against the orientation, just the sexual behavior. I am also do not justify promiscuity in heterosexuals either.

So does heterosexuality. We should probably do away with that too.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

So does heterosexuality. We should probably do away with that too.

Nothing but trouble!