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.
, 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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
Goumas defines homosexuality as sexual orientation plus actually perceiving yourself as one. He doesn't deny that sexual orientation itself as a choice. Does that make things clearer?
from what i know (and i even checked right now) homosexuality=sexual attraction towards the same gender so i see no reason in adding the second part to it.
but i do understand what he meant now. still, its kind of like saying that german=being german+ perceiving yourself as one.
No, its not the same. You are either German or you are not. There is no other possibility. Society gives you the label "German" and you have no other choice but to accept it.
Sexual attraction towards the same gender is obviously an important element, but its not the sole criterion. Homosexual orientation is really complex and multi-dimensional psychologically and sociologically. You know, the concept of homosexuality nowadays has come to define an integral part of an individual's identity. For a homosexual person being homosexual is a quite crucial part of his character. And, we as outsiders can hardly objectively label a person as "homosexual". There are literally dozens of possible sexual orientations. A person that is attracted towards individuals of the same gender is not obligatory "homosexual". For example, he/she could be heteroflexible. Homosexuality is more cultural than scientific. That's why one's self-identity is relevant.
Plus, the concept of homosexuality generally assumes a life-long predisposition. But there is simply not much empirical evidence that supports the position that sexual preference is a life-long predisposition that never wavers or changes.
No, its not the same. You are either German or you are not. There is no other possibility. Society gives you the label "German" and you have no other choice but to accept it.
how is it not the same? if you like only those who are the same gender as you you are gay. if society knows you are gay/german they will lable you as gay/german. both can hide it, both dont have to accept it but it doesnt change the fact that both are like that.
For a homosexual person being homosexual is a quite crucial part of his character.
most homosexuals i met disagree (if i actually understood this sentence.) the fact they are homosexual has nothing to do with their personality. what about the time before we develop any sexual need?
A person that is attracted towards individuals of the same gender is not obligatory "homosexual". For example, he/she could be heteroflexible.
true but he will still be treated as a homosexual/bisexual. he will have to fight for his right to marry his love (if the same gender) and face all the things a "normal" homosexual would have to face. the self-identity isnt that important. if you are attracted to this then you are labled as that. there might be exceptions (bi-curious, heteroflexible and probably many more i never heard of). the bottom line is that if your not heterosexual then your not "normal" and that is whats important. also, one does not call himself gay simply for choosing. youd usually check and make sure what you feel before labeling yourself (unless your an attention seeker who likes drama :/). they will only lable themselves when they think they know what they are.
But there is simply not much empirical evidence that supports the position that sexual preference is a life-long predisposition that never wavers or changes.
i doubt that one day a person can wake up and like muscles instead of curves and breasts XD (really sorry if i said something stupid for not understanding this sentence) XD
refer 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?
please explain. how would either way increase or decrease a species survival chance.
You make nature sound sentient. It's not.
your opinion. not a fact.
Just because something else does things differently doesn't mean we should as well.
k, but what did that have to do with what i said. and if nature isn't sentient, then it itself isn't doing anything.
i doubt that one day a person can wake up and like muscles instead of curves and breasts XD (really sorry if i said something stupid for not understanding this sentence) XD
