Originally posted by It's xyz!I didn't say there was anything wrong with reproduction I said your opinion what was wrong. You implied sex without reproduction is a degenerate act. That's flawed. There isn't some population problem and we aren't an endangered species so calm down.
Well I believe the biggest cases regarding overpopulation, poverty and no interest in slowing down reproduction would be India and China. They in fact are causing the problems you stated and suffering the consequences. I assumed "we" was referring to the west because you contrasted the we with starving people. The human species looks relatively strong, imo.My own actions are none of your concerns.
there is a huge problem with distribution of resources, but this thread is about homosexuality and mental illness.
there is a difference between reproduction and what constitutes as awful parenting. There are governmental measures put in place to ensure awful parents do not harm their children or raise them in poverty. There is nothing wrong with reproduction.
Originally posted by quanchi112Well, it is degenerate, let's not deny that.
I didn't say there was anything wrong with reproduction I said your opinion what was wrong. You implied sex without reproduction is a degenerate act. That's flawed. There isn't some population problem and we aren't an endangered species so calm down.
Originally posted by It's xyz!No, that is just your opinion and acting like anyone who disagrees is wrong is hilariously uninformed. Basically every time anyone has sex without the intent of reproduction it's a degenerate act. It's normal to have sex without the intent of having a child. Very normal.
Well, it is degenerate, let's not deny that.
I think saying it is abnormal fits more. If you go to dictionary.com and look up the word "degenerate" a lot of it talks about something of diminished quality. I think degenerate also carries the implication of it being wrong. Whereas abnormal just means it's not the norm, which is true, but being abnormal in and of itself isn't good or bad.
Technically all the people that excel at a certain subject are abnormal in that subject compared to most people. Whether it is sports, music, etc. Nobody would say Michael Jordan was just a normal basketball player.
Originally posted by Surtur
I think saying it is abnormal fits more. If you go to dictionary.com and look up the word "degenerate" a lot of it talks about something of diminished quality. I think degenerate also carries the implication of it being wrong. Whereas abnormal just means it's not the norm, which is true, but being abnormal in and of itself isn't good or bad.Technically all the people that excel at a certain subject are abnormal in that subject compared to most people. Whether it is sports, music, etc. Nobody would say Michael Jordan was just a normal basketball player.
Technically "exceptional" and "abnormal" are the same thing, but they clearly aren't.
I suppose, but I think the word degenerate takes on the connotation of a criminal type of person. It is true abnormal could take on a negative meaning, but I also think you could easily explain it away by saying not being normal isn't wrong. Whereas saying "hey being a degenerate is okay" would be strange.
Which I guess part of the issue is gay people don't want to be thought of as different. But that just goes back to connotative meanings since the word "different" in this context would usually be taken as a bad thing.
Originally posted by Surtur
I suppose, but I think the word degenerate takes on the connotation of a criminal type of person. It is true abnormal could take on a negative meaning, but I also think you could easily explain it away by saying not being normal isn't wrong. Whereas saying "hey being a degenerate is okay" would be strange.Which I guess part of the issue is gay people don't want to be thought of as different. But that just goes back to connotative meanings since the word "different" in this context would usually be taken as a bad thing.
And I think a big distinction to be made with gay people is that they are indeed different from straight people, but most of the time if you say they're "different," what you probably mean to say is that they're "different from the norm."
Gays consider themselves normal and natural, and there's no reason for them not to. Accepting gays means not just accepting that they exist and that they have a right to exist (a lot of people who think themselves "tolerant" stop here), but accepting that they're natural people and there's nothing wrong with them that needs fixing.
Imagine you were transported to ancient Greece, where homosexuality was an integral part of society. You wouldn't think of yourself as "different" for being straight, nor should you. It's the same for gays in our heteronormative society. It's only society that's telling them they're "different" or "abnormal."
Originally posted by Omega VisionYes there is a reason for them not to feel normal. Everything they do is in fact, abnormal. Most people just tolerate the social faux pas homosexuals tend to do given that most are mature adults who perform their sexuality separate and different from what is considered normal.
Gays consider themselves normal and natural, and there's no reason for them not to. Accepting gays means not just accepting that they exist and that they have a right to exist (a lot of people who think themselves "tolerant" stop here), but accepting that they're natural people and there's nothing wrong with them that needs fixing.Imagine you were transported to ancient Greece, where homosexuality was an integral part of society. You wouldn't think of yourself as "different" for being straight, nor should you. It's the same for gays in our heteronormative society. It's only society that's telling them they're "different" or "abnormal."
This Ancient Greece analogy assumes that Ancient Greece was a very homosexual society and being heterosexual was seen as weird and abnormal. I'm not sure if this is the case. Although homosexuality was common in Ancient Greek societies, I bet even they knew the importance of reproduction. At the very least, on an instinctive reptilian brain type level.
Apples and oranges mate. Besides, gingers receive prejudice all the time and no one has a ginger pride rally. Homosexual prejudice is somehow wrong?
Originally posted by Bardock42
It is abnormal in the same way that light brown hair is. And for the same reason that no one calls light brown haired people abnormal, people should refrain from calling homosexuality that as well.
Originally posted by Omega Visionit's deeper for me to explain, but I'll try.
Explain why.
The behaviours of the two genders with regard to heterosexual attraction that homosexuals, in fact, do not conform to are due to what men and women find attractive in the opposite sex.
Evolution and history often champion providers in males and nurturers in females. This is culture, society and biology. A male sports hero provides points for his team, a mother nurtures her children. A rich male will provide money or jobs for his company, and female bonobos will nurture males to stop killing each other. This is abstract, but I'll explain how this relates to homosexuality as abnormal.
A homosexual man will often times act feminine in the subtlest of ways and adhere to female stereotypes (love for cooking, cleaning, childishness and bitchiness) whereas a homosexual woman will adhere to male stereotypes (working hard, sports, manual labour, self reliance and in some cases unnecessary violence for the sake of ego). Again, this is abstract and possibly superficial. I apologise if anyone is offended by this, but to deny these characteristics as abnormal is denying the reality of the traditional gender roles society has lived in for so many years including biological evolution.
There is of course, males and females who follow the aforementioned gender traits who live happy heterosexual lives and do not feel that cooking or sports make them homosexual in anyway. To be clear, some homosexual women enjoy cooking and some homosexual men enjoy sports just like some heterosexual women don't enjoy cooking and some heterosexual men don't enjoy sports, just to say it isn't black and white.
I may have raised more questions than answered, so I'll focus on the abstract just to paint a picture.
The gender stereotypes exist because biologically, it is beneficial for a woman to show her strong feminine qualities and a man to show his strong masculine qualities. This occurs in all forms of nature and society. Homosexual men strive towards strong feminine qualities and homosexual women strive towards strong masculine qualities.
Although there are many other different types of people with different qualities, and there's the argument that these traits are genetic and not socially constructed (oh, the irony) but for a man to act feminine or a woman to act masculine is always seen as abnormal. If you think it's normal then you need to get your head checked.
This is another kettle of fish, but...
Transsexuals have the most confusion as nobody knows what pronoun to refer to that person. It's gets to the point when it's just social justice warriors and special snowflakes denying reality, playing the victim to win the goal of oppression. Is it the trans female lesbian who can't have children, or the trans male homosexual who doesn't have a fully functioning penis? I just don't know anymore because biology has become secondary to politics and the only thing new wave feminism has proven is that they can be just as bigoted, hypocritical and disgusting as anybody else without actually proving anything.