The Flaw In Your Logic Regarding Homosexuality

reply to post by InhaleExhale

I hope you have mistakenly meant this mean something else. its a bit confusing, do you mean differently in public and what would constitute so in your terms?

What type of acts do consider to be "different" to justify you questioning their sexuality?

Come on!

Normal looking man


Flamboyantly gay man

How many people have questioned about their sexuality?

Directly?? None! It’s none of my business nor do I care. By “question” I mean question it in my own mind.

Look, if someone is looking at you and questions your sexuality then chances are there is something about your appearance that sends this signal (like the flamboyant guy in the picture above). To me, that is IN YOUR FACE gay and most people don’t respect that. Sorry!!

Why can't we just be people? Why must some people broadcast their sexuality by the way they act or dress?

reply to post by seabag


Then let people be people.

why do we reduce what people do to their activity in their crotch?

I have seen flamboyant straight men.

Your linking sexuality to behavior is, while often accurate, not exclusive.

Originally posted by HairlessApe
"Heterosexuality is naturally occuring - just like rape, murder, theft, and cannibalism. I'm not saying heterosexuality and these atrocious acts which don't involve two consenting adults are comparable, I'm just comparing them for absolutely no reason."

Think before you speak... Or write, for that matter.

This is exactly why I called him out on it in the previous thread. He left it at a basic comparison, asserting that homosexuality was akin to all those things. Obviously, he chose not to elaborate because he wanted to make a bigoted statement, and that was made clear in his following posts too.

There's nothing that can be done, these people still exist in 2013, it's a shame.

reply to post by seabag


Why can't you just shut up and let people be who they want to be? Why do you get to decide who is "too flamboyant"? Why is it any of your business?

Let me guess, you'll now scream about your right to have an opinion and your right to express it, while at the same time trying to attack other peoples right to be "flamboyant"? Yes, that's the hypocrisy we see every freakin day on good ole ATS.

Rights are for everyone, but it seems common Human decency is not.

Originally posted by iwilliam

Originally posted by HairlessApe

Rape, murder, theft, cannibalism--all naturally occurring also.

In short, I only need ONE sentence to defeat your logic. But for comedic value, I'll add a second.

"Heterosexuality is naturally occuring - just like rape, murder, theft, and cannibalism. I'm not saying heterosexuality and these atrocious acts which don't involve two consenting adults are comparable, I'm just comparing them for absolutely no reason."

I'm not sure I saw the other thread referenced in the OP, but I definitely see where OP is coming from. Some people seem very anti-homosexual. And because it's not PC to hate on homosexuality, they sometimes resort to "tricky" tactics to paint it in an unfavorable light. On the other hand, not having seen the other thread and comment, I can't quite say if that's what was occurring. To be fair, out of context, I'm not sure drawing that comparison is enough to make me say that. To play devil's advocate here, there is an actual point buried in that comment.

I didn't add a link to the thread, I simply surrounded the name of the thread in quotes. A quick copy/paste into the ATS search engine will find it. And trust me, you'll have no problem finding the comment I was talking about. I don't think comparing homosexuality to rape and murder is a "tricky tactic," I think it's blatantly and disgustingly bigoted. And frankly, it's plain stupid.

So that my intention is clear here, I'll preface by pointing out that homosexuality is NOT truly comparable to murder (or rape, theft, or cannibalism.) The biggest and most important distinction here is that homosexuality is not inherently immoral (unless you are a member of a religion which tells you that it is.) What I mean by "inherently immoral" is that things which are "inherently immoral" harm others against their will, by the very commission of the act. Like murder, rape, theft, and cannibalism all harm unwilling participants.

I agree. Except for one thing, I wouldn't call homosexuality immoral in any sense - inherently or not. I'm not sure if you're actually saying it's immoral or not - but I do want to be clear about this regardless.

Some would argue, however, that homosexuality goes "against the 'natural order' of things." And this is, to a degree, true. I am a male, and biology designed my sexual parts to fit with female sexual parts. When done properly, this will create new life and perpetuate the species. Which (theoretically) is good for the species. Now, if we were a small tribe living in the desert a few thousand years ago, I might be able to come up with a successful argument for why homosexuality is harmful to our society. (This being potentially true for a tribe whose success and even defense were dependent on having a healthy, growing population.) But in the modern day (and especially with over-population being such an emerging problem) that argument can not successfully be made. In fact, at this point in history it might be better for our entire species if there were more homosexuality, and less breeding.

I'm sorry, but that's simply incorrect. Homosexuality has been observed in over 50% of all animal species. It's been documented in dozens of scientific journal and peer reviewed. It isn't debatable, as it's proven. There is no species which is exclusively homosexual (for obvious reasons). But that doesn't mean homosexuality is an accident. The "well if the peices fit..." point of view is a very layman way of looking at things, but there are a plethora of reasons that homosexuality is advantageous to a species. For many mammalian species, that reason is dominance. In many mammalian species, only the most dominant male or the most dominant group of males is allowed to mate with females. The males which aren't allowed to mate with these females will have imbalances that lead to the very mental disorders you're talking about as well as other general health problems if they are denied the basic need to mate altogether. Over time, the gene for homosexuality became more and more advantageous for species to have as population sizes grew. This is but one of hundreds of reasons that homosexuality makes sense and has advantages in a "natural" sense.

But it is something that makes a person function "differently" than the average / norm, and it is something you're born with a predisposition to do. So on that one point, the analogy is accurate.

On all others, it fails.

You can't deduce the functions of nature through "common sense." Nature does not utilize the same patterns that homosapien brains were developed to recognize. I think that's what you're trying to do, and it's a good-willed attempt, but it falls short.

I'll address the rest of your post after I fix the grammatical issues in this one.

Originally posted by iwilliam

Originally posted by HairlessApe

Rape, murder, theft, cannibalism--all naturally occurring also.

In short, I only need ONE sentence to defeat your logic. But for comedic value, I'll add a second.

"Heterosexuality is naturally occuring - just like rape, murder, theft, and cannibalism. I'm not saying heterosexuality and these atrocious acts which don't involve two consenting adults are comparable, I'm just comparing them for absolutely no reason."

Now, some might argue that homosexuality is a psychological aberration. A psychological disease. And if we're being honest, I think this view is much harder to argue against. And I know this will probably upset some people, especially with the connotations that the term "disease" has. If I had a better, more accurate word, (minus those connotations) I would use it. "Aberrant psychological condition" is more netural, but doesn't quite roll off the tongue, and some might not as clearly understand quite what I'm getting at.

Well, I would challenge those people to point me to a single peer-reviewed and publicized scientific journal which can, in a straight-forward manner, show me evidence that can't be easily disproven suggesting that homosexuality is a "disease." Such a journal does not exist. It isn't a psychological condition either, it's genetic. Heterosexual labrats have been made into homosexuals by altering their genes. Just like the amount of melanin in your skin (your skin color) is genetic. And you wouldn't "correct" a skin color, would you?

That said, if this view were correct, that would make it a mostly harmless "disease." Completely harmless, were it not for idiotic homophobes and hateful people who can't just peacefully coexist. Now, why do I say "disease?" Well, even advocates of homosexuality, and homosexuals themselves ascribe to the view that you are "born with it." It is not a choice. Someone doesn't wake up one day and decide: "You know... I think I'll start being attracted to people of my own gender, even though I know that may be social suicide in some circles (or my own family) , and I'll catch lots of hate for it, etc etc... but I just want to be so different that big insecure jocks want to beat me up."

Well said, but they aren't correct. If they are, point me towards some source material which I can use to verify this opinion for myself. Being born with something doesn't make it a disease. I was born with a bigger than average head, poorer-than-average vision, and an attraction towards the opposite gender. None of those are diseases, and neither is an attraction to the same gender.

Now, "disease" may not seem like the right word, in the regard that homosexuality is something you can not fix or "cure." Nor should it be seen that way. Howevr, for the most part, addiction is considered a "disease" although it realy functions more like a predisposition that you can ignore but never wholly get rid of. And this is the one way in which the analogy drawn earlier is accurate, IMHO. Some people are born driven to steal, rape, or kill. Of course "born with a predisposition" is where the comparison begins and ends, as I pointed out earlier-- since homosexuality harms no one-- and in fact, homosexuals rather enjoy it. (Social stigma aside, who doesn't enjoy exploring their own sexuality?)

Actually, genetic manipulation probably could make gay people straight. Just like it could make a black guy white, or a white guy black. That doesn't mean it's a dysfunction or that it should be altered. People who want to steal, rape, kill, etc, are more often than not made that way, not born that way. Not only that, but stealing, raping, and killing are in no way comparable to sexual behavior with a consenting adult. Frankly, I'm very disappointed that we have to return to this ridiculous comparison. It's invalid.

Originally posted by Rocker2013

Originally posted by HairlessApe
"Heterosexuality is naturally occuring - just like rape, murder, theft, and cannibalism. I'm not saying heterosexuality and these atrocious acts which don't involve two consenting adults are comparable, I'm just comparing them for absolutely no reason."

Think before you speak... Or write, for that matter.

This is exactly why I called him out on it in the previous thread. He left it at a basic comparison, asserting that homosexuality was akin to all those things. Obviously, he chose not to elaborate because he wanted to make a bigoted statement, and that was made clear in his following posts too.

There's nothing that can be done, these people still exist in 2013, it's a shame.

Hey - at least there are open-minded and caring people like yourself who refuse to be silent no matter how loud these hate-filled temper-tantrums are.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by InhaleExhale

 

I hope you have mistakenly meant this mean something else. its a bit confusing, do you mean differently in public and what would constitute so in your terms?

What type of acts do consider to be "different" to justify you questioning their sexuality?

Come on!

Normal looking man

Flamboyantly gay man

How many people have questioned about their sexuality?

Directly?? None! It’s none of my business nor do I care. By “question” I mean question it in my own mind.

Look, if someone is looking at you and questions your sexuality then chances are there is something about your appearance that sends this signal (like the flamboyant guy in the picture above). To me, that is IN YOUR FACE gay and most people don’t respect that. Sorry!!

Why can't we just be people? Why must some people broadcast their sexuality by the way they act or dress?

edit on 1-7-2013 by seabag because: (no reason given)

Because that's how those people are.
If you can't accept it, maybe you have a problem inside of yourself that you should address.
It's your problem, not "those people's."

And that's the stone-cold truth.

Originally posted by slowisfast
reply to post by iwilliam

 

Stop it. I never said to not have pride in who you are. I didn't, at all, say that parades or whatever are unacceptable.

I said, specifically, that when gays compare what they're currently going through to the civil rights movement, it is intellectually dishonest, and in no way, a legitimate comparison.

I see you were quick to call me homophobic, that's convenient. What is my sexuality? Do you know? How many gay friends do I have, are you aware? It's obvious you're an emotional human being seeing as you were so quick to call names and make assumptions. I try not to do that in life. It's good advice to heed, especially when you're tying to make a point on the merits of a topic and not the person who's having the conversation.

Be an adult.

They are being adults.

What's happening here is that you want to tell people not to be proud of who they are, yet you publicly announce that it's not the point you're trying to make...

You're obviously heterosexual, and if you're aren't you're self-loathing. Despite common misconception, there is such a thing as a stupid question.

Nothing about calling you homophobic is convenient... You make it extremely obvious.

reply to post by Rocker2013

Why can't you just shut up and let people be who they want to be?

Because this is a discussion forum…

Why do you get to decide who is "too flamboyant"? Why is it any of your business?

We all make determinations every day, don’t we?

Let me guess, you'll now scream about your right to have an opinion and your right to express it, while at the same time trying to attack other peoples right to be "flamboyant"? Yes, that's the hypocrisy we see every freakin day on good ole ATS.

Rights are for everyone, but it seems common Human decency is not.

Didn’t I say it’s a right earlier?

I’m not trying to oppress anyone…calm down! Stop being so flamboyant!

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

Then let people be people.

I do!

why do we reduce what people do to their activity in their crotch?

I don’t!

I have seen flamboyant straight men.

Does it draw attention like flamboyant gay men?

Your linking sexuality to behavior is, while often accurate, not exclusive.

The flamboyant guy in the picture I posted most certainly is exclusive to one group.

Again, I'm not oppressing anyone. I'm stating my opinion on a little site on the interwebs. Some people act as though I'm passing legal judgement that will affect millions or something!

reply to post by HairlessApe

Because that's how those people are.
If you can't accept it, maybe you have a problem inside of yourself that you should address.
It's your problem, not "those people's."

And that's the stone-cold truth.

I’m sure it is!!

However, the negative effects of acting that way do not affect ME! I’m not going to suffer any negative consequences for those flamboyant actions.....so is it really MY problem?

Originally posted by slowisfast
reply to post by HairlessApe

 

I never denounced anything. I never said homosexuality was 'less than' skin color. Don't put words in my mouth. I said comparing the two, which are mutually exclusive, is intellectually dishonest...which it is. The fight for gay rights and the fight for civil rights were two totally different scenarios with different level of oppression levied again it's recipients.

Thank you for calling me names though. I've done nothing but state my opinion on the matter and Ive now been called xenophobic, homophobic, and a bigot.

Why do you make insults up and then call people names? Are you purposefully looking to get offended by someones thoughts?

edit on 1-7-2013 by slowisfast because: (no reason given)

Xenophobic, homophobic, and bigot can only be considered names by a person who is willing to defend those positions. They're conditions made recognizable by fights, through many centuries, in many different nations, over many different reasons. Bigot means you have an irrational fear and/or hate. I understand that you don't see it as irrational, but that's what a bigot does - block out the logic.

Don't tell me what I can or can't accuse you of. Don't give me hypothetical situations.

YOUR WORDS defined you as a bigot, NOT MINE. So if you'd like me to revoke my statement you'll have to provide solid evidence that I'm wrong.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by HairlessApe

 

Because that's how those people are.
If you can't accept it, maybe you have a problem inside of yourself that you should address.
It's your problem, not "those people's."

And that's the stone-cold truth.

I’m sure it is!!

However, the negative effects of acting that way do not affect ME! I’m not going to suffer any negative consequences for those flamboyant actions.....so is it really MY problem?

Yes, it is. That problem may not be homosexuality, but it is something. I don't want to start listing off examples, because I feel that I would be overstepping my own boundary limits, but that is genuinely the way I feel. If you're here for serious debate offer me your rebuttal.

My opinion, stated blatantly, is that you have an issue (could be related or unrelated to homosexuality - I'm not making that judgement) which causes you to, in some way - no matter how small, strike out against homosexuality.

reply to post by seabag


NO you are NOT entitled to your opinion! (I kid, I kid..) I see less "tolerance" from this group (gay community) than any other.

Anyway, I hear what you're sayin about the "flamboyance" thing.. Personally, I couldn't care less what people do with their lives, I just find those flamboyant ones to be really annoying as well. Even prissy women don't act quite like that.

reply to post by HairlessApe


You're making stuff up again and are responding to a post to someone else.

You're looking for an argument. You're calling me names. You're acting like a child.

Please point out to me where I said anything about not having pride in who you are. You're inferring insults where their aren't any. I've only spoken to the comparison to the civil rights movement, which is not a valid comparison beyond surface level issues.

Really, show me where I said anything regarding not having pride in who you are.

reply to post by HairlessApe


Really?
You're wound too tight. Learn to relax.

Originally posted by Wookiep
reply to post by seabag

 

NO you are NOT entitled to your opinion!

(I kid, I kid..) I see less "tolerance" from this group (gay community) than any other.

Anyway, I hear what you're sayin about the "flamboyance" thing.. Personally, I couldn't care less what people do with their lives, I just find those flamboyant ones to be really annoying as well. Even prissy women don't act quite like that.

edit on 1-7-2013 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)

Right...

"Flamboyant gays are worse than prissy women."
"I hear what you're saying - flamboyant people are really annoying"

But the people with actual points, often involving science, are the intolerant ones.

Makes sense. I'll be more careful to respect your random (and oddly sexist) insults with no backing from now on. I shall tolerate your blatant intolerance.

reply to post by HairlessApe

Yes, it is. That problem may not be homosexuality, but it is something. I don't want to start listing off examples, because I feel that I would be overstepping my own boundary limits, but that is genuinely the way I feel. If you're here for serious debate offer me your rebuttal.

My opinion, stated blatantly, is that you have an issue (could be related or unrelated to homosexuality - I'm not making that judgement) which causes you to, in some way - no matter how small, strike out against homosexuality.

Hell, I don’t know what my problem is. I’m not good at self-analysis. Whatever problem I have that gives me an aversion to flamboyantly gay men must be contagious because most heterosexual men share the same aversion! Must be something in the water or food. DAMN YOU, MONSANTO!!!

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by HairlessApe

 

Yes, it is. That problem may not be homosexuality, but it is something. I don't want to start listing off examples, because I feel that I would be overstepping my own boundary limits, but that is genuinely the way I feel. If you're here for serious debate offer me your rebuttal.

My opinion, stated blatantly, is that you have an issue (could be related or unrelated to homosexuality - I'm not making that judgement) which causes you to, in some way - no matter how small, strike out against homosexuality.

Hell, I don’t know what my problem is. I’m not good at self-analysis. Whatever problem I have that gives me an aversion to flamboyantly gay men must be contagious because most heterosexual men share the same aversion! Must be something in the water or food. DAMN YOU, MONSANTO!!!

edit on 1-7-2013 by seabag because: (no reason given)

Finally...

Something we can agree on.