Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Is homosexuality right or wrong?

Posted Apr 1, '12 at 12:06am

thebluerabbit

thebluerabbit

5,378 posts

let us consider for a moment, if you will, that nature is not forgiving. if this world were to fall into utter chaos, there would be no way for gays to have children. that being said, if nature would not hesitate to claim a fallen wolf, why should we choose to help those who have doomed themselves. through any means.


why not? first of all they havnt doomed themselves since they arent resposibble for being this way. second, they arent any weaker for being gay. even in a world without chaos, most chances are that gays WONT have children. and gay children arent children to gay parents either. and no one is asking for help. they ask for equality or at least being acknowledged and left alone.
 

Posted Apr 1, '12 at 4:57am

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,260 posts

Knight

let us consider for a moment, if you will, that nature is not forgiving. if this world were to fall into utter chaos, there would be no way for gays to have children. that being said, if nature would not hesitate to claim a fallen wolf, why should we choose to help those who have doomed themselves. through any means.

As thebluerabbit said, homosexuals didn't choose to be so. And they can still help as much as any other heterosexual, probably even more so if they don't have to invest into reproduction. Reproduction is costly, don't forget. So they're not 'fallen' by any means, they can even help to pass on parts of their genes if they can help heterosexual siblings of theirs to survive and reproduce.

But you have to ask yourself: do you, as a being conscient about concepts of species but also provided with empathy, prefer to marginally increase your groups survival, or do you save as much humans as possible and by that marginally decrease the chances of the species to survive?
Unless you're someone who thinks that we are a crown species, because of religious convictions or so, there's no reason why our species should absolutely survive all others, there's no reason to sacrifice certain people for that.
 

Posted Apr 1, '12 at 5:25am

Kasic

Kasic

5,734 posts

, there would be no way for gays to have children.


Why is this such a big issue?

Homosexuals make up at most 10% of the population. Most likely less. We're already overpopulated and by no means in threat of extinction. Who cares whether or not they're reproducing?

And this is untrue as well. Homosexuals are still perfectly capable of reproduction. Just not with their chosen partner. So even IF in the event that there were only homosexuals in the world, humanity would not die off as a species.

if nature would not hesitate to claim a fallen wolf, why should we choose to help those who have doomed themselves.


1) You make nature sound sentient. It's not.

2) Just because something else does things differently doesn't mean we should as well.

3) How exactly have they "doomed themselves?"

This whole argument is just stupid though. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for homosexuality to be considered wrong. The only arguments against it are irrational fears, misconceptions, and religiously motivated bigotry.
 

Posted Apr 1, '12 at 7:03am

goumas13

goumas13

4,906 posts

As thebluerabbit said, homosexuals didn't choose to be so.

No, actually homosexuality is a choice. Sexual orientation is not based on behavior but on self-perception. Hence, even if people have sexual relationships with persons of the same gender, they cannot be classified as "homosexuals" unless they consider themselves to be so. Homosexuality is as much an intellectual and psychological orientation as it is a physical one.
E.g. prison sexuality; prison **** is often perpetrated by inmates who do not view themselves as bisexual or homosexual. These prisoners have "sex" with persons of the same gender, however they are still sociologically and psychologically classified as heterosexual.

Anyway, sexual orientation is shaped through complex interactions of genetic, biological, psychological and social factors.

Frankly, the "homosexuals didn't choose to be so" is a pretty weak argument in favor of homosexuality. The fact that homosexuality may be innate is simply not the real reason we shouldn't discriminate against homosexuals. What does or does not cause homosexuality is immaterial.

Honestly, it is very unfortunate that the same arguments that have been used by the gay bashers for so long have now become central tenets of the gay identity. They were born this way! Itâs not their "fault", its just a "disorder"!The only way for some people to accept homosexuality is to say it's "natural". And, that's just wrong.
 

Posted Apr 1, '12 at 7:35am

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,260 posts

Knight

@goumas
Well, of course you choose your sexual behaviour more or less freely, but what I mean is the sexual orientation isn't just something you pick from a catalogue.

It isn't the base argument to why tolerate homosexuality (as you said it would be pretty sad if it was); it is simply a counter in debates to all those people who believe gay people are gay because of curiosity or so. That would also implicate that children adopted by a homosexual couple might 'turn gay', which isn't the case.

I will agree with you that sexual attraction is more plastic than cast-in-stone, but its still not comparable to an annoying mode trend or something like that. And even if it was, gay people have the right to be gay, no matter why they are, and we should tolerate that.

 

Posted Apr 1, '12 at 7:57am

thebluerabbit

thebluerabbit

5,378 posts

No, actually homosexuality is a choice. Sexual orientation is not based on behavior but on self-perception. Hence, even if people have sexual relationships with persons of the same gender, they cannot be classified as "homosexuals" unless they consider themselves to be so. Homosexuality is as much an intellectual and psychological orientation as it is a physical one.
E.g. prison sexuality; prison **** is often perpetrated by inmates who do not view themselves as bisexual or homosexual. These prisoners have "sex" with persons of the same gender, however they are still sociologically and psychologically classified as heterosexual.


horibble explanation. the fact they r ape people in jail doesnt make them gay because that doesnt mean they are attracted to them. if that was wrong then all guys who do this alone would be considered as having a hand fetish. you can choose to accept or not to accept yourself as a homosexual but not to be or not to be one. even if you will have a girlfriend, the fact you like guys still make you a homosexual.

Frankly, the "homosexuals didn't choose to be so" is a pretty weak argument in favor of homosexuality. The fact that homosexuality may be innate is simply not the real reason we shouldn't discriminate against homosexuals. What does or does not cause homosexuality is immaterial.


once again, just like the natural/unnatural debate. its not a reason why homosexuality is right, its a counter to saying its chosen.
 

Posted Apr 1, '12 at 9:05am

goumas13

goumas13

4,906 posts

horibble explanation. the fact they r ape people in jail doesnt make them gay because that doesnt mean they are attracted to them.

I know its a terrible example and an extreme one, but you get the point. They generally don't have a romantic attraction, however usually there is a certain degree of "sexual" attraction.
Heterosexual prisoners are known to sometimes begin sexual relations with each other when confined together for long periods of time.
The same often happened to sailors, since the Middle Ages they were known for engaging in homosexual relationships, nevertheless they were not considired gay.

you can choose to accept or not to accept yourself as a homosexual but not to be or not to be one. even if you will have a girlfriend, the fact you like guys still make you a homosexual.

No it doesn't work that way. You know, the modern concept of male homosexuality, has embodied the belief of a homosexual/heterosexual binary. That's erroneous. There are many possible combinations. Its not only gay or straight.

Anyway, gay is a social identity. Homosexuality is a socially-constructed category. Western culture chose to conceptualize and divide sexuality in an unique and arbitrary way.
Homosexuality is a self-construction, thus the individual decides if he belongs in that group.

The attraction to persons of the same gender is not enough to sociologically classify a person as homosexual.
 

Posted Apr 1, '12 at 9:15am

Pazx

Pazx

6,125 posts

OP is against homosexuality

OP is a huge ***got

 

Posted Apr 1, '12 at 10:32am

nichodemus

nichodemus

13,241 posts

Knight

OP is a huge ***got


Isn't that ironic considering the semantics? ROFL.
 

Posted Apr 1, '12 at 11:44am

thebluerabbit

thebluerabbit

5,378 posts

I know its a terrible example and an extreme one, but you get the point. They generally don't have a romantic attraction, however usually there is a certain degree of "sexual" attraction.
Heterosexual prisoners are known to sometimes begin sexual relations with each other when confined together for long periods of time.
The same often happened to sailors, since the Middle Ages they were known for engaging in homosexual relationships, nevertheless they were not considired gay.


i fail to see your point. how does that prove its a choice???

Homosexuality is a self-construction, thus the individual decides if he belongs in that group.


a guy who is attracted to guys is gay weather he likes it or not. the fact people dont know doesnt make him less of a homosexual. a homosexual who hides his identity is the same as a jew who hides his identity. being homosexual means that your attracted to people of the same gender and you cant control that. its that simple.
 
Reply to Is homosexuality right or wrong?

You must be logged in to post a reply!