The Homosexual Debate

[paul_valaru]

From another thread, basically it's a debate whether Homosexuals are deviant, and are morally wrong.

My stance so far, they are grown adults, and are acting consensually, therefore are not morally wrong. And that it is normal behaviour to someone who is gay.

My opponents stance is that it is deiviant nature, and is morally wrong, and is not normal behaviour.

I'll let him express his point of view when he returns from doing whatever he does, not kicking him when he is offline.

So this is not about gay marriage, or gay rights per say.

I still argue that they cannot be deviants, do to the fact that they are not deviating from there standard behaviour, unfortunatly NAMBLA (pedophile group) use the same arguement, but jsut cause a bunch of sub-human sickos use it doesn't mean it's not valid.

Pedphiles to me means non-consecual sex, hence I find it wrong, moreso than the fact that I find it repugnant, it's the aspect of it that there is a victim that makes it wrong in my head

Same for beastiality.

to quote myself

the same sex thing, while it's not my cup of tea, I have to disagree, and say it is perfectly normal behaviour, and now becoming socially acceptable (slowly, but shirley), therefore not deviant, and by definition a gay person, having sex with someone of the same sex is not deviant, simply beacause they are not deviating from there sexual preference.

so where do you stand?

 

[HomeLAN]

Just to add a little fuel, there's a case right now in Germany where one man killed and ate another man. Since the victim responded to an ad, and went in with his eyes open, knowing the outcome and desiring to be eaten, that was consensual.

Is it, therefore, normal?

While the gent who did the killing is on trial for it, it's actually possible that he'll get a lighter sentence for "assisted suicide", since the victim wanted to be eaten.

So, just how much weight should "consensual" carry when we're defininf "normal"?

 

[BlurOfSerenity]

i dont think that homosexuality is immoral.
i have a lot of arguments on this that i will post later.

 

[paul_valaru]

then the problem we have is defining normal. It was consentual, they both were grown adults, yet to be wanted to be eaten (as in consumed, not foreplay) must mean the guy had diminished mental capacity....but I say that and people say gays have dimished mental capacity, therefore they become sub-human and the bigotry gets easier....

it is a dangerous slope.

But if we define normal, where does it end, we could end up in a cookie cutter world, where not to fit in the norms could means you are shuned, or worse, eradicated *cough* aryan nation 1000 reich *cough*

My personal philosophy on all this is leave others to there otherness, as long as no-one is getting hurt. But it's hard to leave it there, when others won't accept your otherness.

 

[BlurOfSerenity]

the easy way to solve the whole issue of "what is normal" is this:

stop trying to find "normal" and realise that it just doesnt exist.
there IS no "normal".

 

[HomeLAN]

But if we define normal, where does it end, we could end up in a cookie cutter world, where not to fit in the norms could means you are shuned, or worse, eradicated *cough* aryan nation 1000 reich *cough*

That's as extreme as my example disqualifying "consensual" as a sole defining attribute. Fair enough.

It does point out the issue though. What is "normal"? How do we define it? Who codifies that definition? What are the penalties for straying outside it?

Slippery slope indeed.

 

[HomeLAN]

the easy way to solve the whole issue of "what is normal" is this:

stop trying to find "normal" and realise that it just doesnt exist.
there IS no "normal".

OK, so our entire legal system and the laws underpinning it should be scrapped? What would you put in its place (or is anarchy what you're promoting)?

 

[Shadowfax]

the easy way to solve the whole issue of "what is normal" is this:

stop trying to find "normal" and realise that it just doesnt exist.
there IS no "normal".

i'd say that different people define the term 'normal' in different ways. of course there is a thing called 'normal' but it's just not the same to everyone.

 

[Professur]

I'll paraphrase why I've said in hundreds of similar threads.

There are IMHO 3 different types of gays. Genetic, behavioral, and voluntary.

Genetic have a genetic disposition towards gayness. Be it defect, mutation, or evolution. Since these people obviously can't reproduce, I say let them be themselves. Revel in their gayness, and let them die out.

Behavioral stems from some event in their past. It could be as little as one kiss. These people could be said to be suffering from a mental disorder, or perhaps brainwashing/conditioning. Wether they should be force fed a cure is as debatable as wether someone with a harmless delusion should be. Is their being gay making them a danger to themselves? Looking at the dramatic spike in HIV/AIDS in the gay population ... possibly.

Voluntary are the ones that worry me the most. They're perfectly normal people, who've chosen to be gay/bi. Why do they worry me? Because they've decided to embark on a contrary, inflammitory lifestyle, often after living as a straight, marrying, having kids, etc. These are the ones causing the greatest problems in society today.

 

[paul_valaru]

but to decide everything by majority it just as bad. To create a law is a long process and in theory, laws are suppost to protect the comon good, and safety.

therefore, what (trying to go back on topic) about homosexuality is against the common good, or that the masses need to be protected from it.

 

[Shadowfax]

what are these problems you are referring to, Prof?

 

[HomeLAN]

OK, so now a step towards defining "normal" is to say that it works "towards the common good" or at least doesn't work against it.

I can deal with that. Under those conditions, though, shooting a criminal yourself would be "normal" and "legal".

FTR, I really don't give much of a crap about this issue, but getting to WHY it's OK or isn't is the root issue, and nobody has yet been able to solve it for me. I'm hoping one of you can.

 

[Shadowfax]

OK, so now a step towards defining "normal" is to say that it works "towards the common good" or at least doesn't work against it.

I can deal with that. Under those conditions, though, shooting a criminal yourself would be "normal" and "legal".

FTR, I really don't give much of a crap about this issue, but getting to WHY it's OK or isn't is the root issue, and nobody has yet been able to solve it for me. I'm hoping one of you can.

can gay people work? *check*
can gay people contribute to society? *check*
can gay people live in peace? *check*
can gay people live in a society where they cause no problems? *check*

now. there are gay people who don't meet those standards, of course. question: are there straight people who don't meet those standards? yup. do we ban heterosexuality? nope.
it's about reproduction...if everyone turned queer, THEN there would be a problem. existance, that is. but that's in no way happening. so why deny joy of life to such a small percentage of people? just because you can't put yourself in their position?

nah, that doesn't work for me. tolerance is a key issue here.

 

[paul_valaru]

FTR, I really don't give much of a crap about this issue, but getting to WHY it's OK or isn't is the root issue, and nobody has yet been able to solve it for me. I'm hoping one of you can.

why it's ok, or isn't? won't be solved here, and probably won't in our lifetime.

Winky, from his posts (he can correct me if I'm worng) is totally against homosexual lifestyle.

I am not against it, I can't say I'm for it, cause I am not gay, but I am for people living within there sexual prefrence without goverment interference, or having to live in fear of their lives.

 

[HomeLAN]

why it's ok, or isn't? won't be solved here, and probably won't in our lifetime.

That's a solid possibility, but one can dream. This one's already gotten further than most of the threads on this topic.

 

[paul_valaru]

I'm sure it will go to hell sooner or later.

My purpose in starign it wasn't to change anyones mind, because we know that won't happen, but it might sway some of the undecided, or open minds to new possibilities.

There are IMHO 3 different types of gays. Genetic, behavioral, and voluntary.

I see only one kind, the gay kind, genetic, might be, but a mutation? A mutaion is usually either evolutionairy, hence makes us better..nope they are just people.

Or is a freak accident, but there are gay animals as well, and nothing bad is happening to those species.

so genetic, maybe, but mutation, no, it is jsut the way there are.

but in our societies hetrosexual is what is said is normal, and for the majority it is, so these people who are married, and get divorced, and come out of the closet, maybe they where gay all along, and didn't realize it.

 

[MrBishop]

I think that you're attacking this from the wrong angle Paul.
I think that you should be hitting this head-on.

Is deviation from the accepted norm (75%+ of a given population) to be considered evil?

In this case...from what I can tell... Winky is of the opinion that homosexuality is not within the norm (less than 75% of the population is gay),**He'd be right...it's only about 22-24% depending on which statistician you're talking to ** and because it is not within the norm, it is a deviation from the norm and is therefore 'evil'.

I think that it should go beyond that. There has to be a moral judgement attached to it...how far away from the statistical 'norm' can one be (without breaking the law of the land) and still be accepted as normal?

Take south-paws.

Approximately 10-13% of the population is left-handed. People who can use both hands equally well are ambidextrous. True ambidexterity is rare.

Generally, males are three times more likely to be left-handed than females. Statistically, one twin of a pair has a 20% chance to be left-handed. Gay people may be up to 39% as likely to be left-handed as straight people (Habib, 2000).

Statistically...south-paws are abnormal (away from the norm), but because the population in general doesn't find being left-handed to be harmful to society as large, being left-handed is no longer a burning topic (Literally...because lefties used to be burned at the stake as witches (see definition of sinister)

The same can be said for being blue-eyed, or being an albino, or of mixed-blood... all are pretty much accepted as normal despite being anything but (statistically speaking).

Homosexuality is not considered 'normal' right now, mostly because of the religious ideology. The majority of Christians point to Leviticus 18:22 to make their point known...despite the fact that most Christians don't follow the first 17 verses of Leviticus or the following 19 for that matter.

.tbc...

 

[HomeLAN]

Less than 25%...another possible definition.

Oh, and any time you want to blame organized religion (and its less educated followers)for large percentages of the world's problems, I'm likely to agree.

 

[MrBishop]

Genetic have a genetic disposition towards gayness. Be it defect, mutation, or evolution. Since these people obviously can't reproduce, I say let them be themselves. Revel in their gayness, and let them die out.

They can reproduce...not that it matters. Gay kids are born of het parents all the time. It's not 'passed on the in genes' directly. They won't be dying off...sorry t' dissapoint you.

Behavioral stems from some event in their past. It could be as little as one kiss. These people could be said to be suffering from a mental disorder, or perhaps brainwashing/conditioning. Wether they should be force fed a cure is as debatable as wether someone with a harmless delusion should be. Is their being gay making them a danger to themselves? Looking at the dramatic spike in HIV/AIDS in the gay population ... possibly.

Two points.... in some cases, homosexual behavior has been linked with past molestations...but certainly not in all cases. As for the dramatic spike in HIV/AIDS...that was a while back. Many homosexuals practice safe sex better than most heterosexuals (who have had a higher spike in HIV/AIDS)...the highest spike comes from Africa...where upwards of 1500+/day die of AIDS alone.

Voluntary are the ones that worry me the most. They're perfectly normal people, who've chosen to be gay/bi. Why do they worry me? Because they've decided to embark on a contrary, inflammitory lifestyle, often after living as a straight, marrying, having kids, etc. These are the ones causing the greatest problems in society today.

Most of what you'll see as voluntary...are on the 'lesbian' edge. Women who chose to call themselves Bisexual...because it's trendy. You won't find many guys who'll claim the same. As for acting straight...it's an act. An act dedicated to fitting into society..but now that society is slowing down it's witch-hunt, I'm sure that you'll find many more that have said "fuck this shit" and stopped living a lie.

 

[markjs]

Did anyone know that in the original language of the original texts of the Bible there is no word defining homosexua?