Why Condone Fruitless Deviant Behavior? - Page 5

so then, why condone all these activities? thats easy, sexual activity of any kind is an important role in the way humans function. the ability to choose how active or inactive is also something that can help define who we are as individuals.

reproduction is an important part of society, but i think it is somewhat seperate from sexual activity. sex (homo or hetero) is useful in that it helps release chemicals in the body that help us with brain fuction as well as making us feel good. and as humans we strive to be intelligent and to feel good. if you need somebody with the same sex or somebody of a different sex to get that release then hey, go for it.

with the technology we have now, everyone could be homosexual and it wouldnt much matter aside from some shifts with gender roles which may or may not pose problems.

Not all heterosexuals can reproduce, and not all heterosexuals choose to reproduce. Hence, in accordance to the altered question:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
---
..i believe i stated heterosexuality.


so this altering of questions..is irrelevant. Hence, you should thoroughly investigate my point-and attempt to find "true flaw" in the fact. k thanx.



its because heterosexuals can argue homosexuality to be fruitless.-homosexuals cannot argue heterosexuality to be fruitless.

quote:

---

..i believe i stated heterosexuality.

---

A male and female having sex does not make them heterosexuals, they are performing hetero sex, they may be of any sexual preferrence or sexuality. This is a flaw in your logic.

Its ok to call homosexuality fruitless in terms of childbaring as an act, but not as fruitless as a lifestyle and existance.

so people who cant have children for some reason.......should they just never have sex because they cant produce an offspring??????

that whole....its wrong because it doesnt produce children theory is pretty weak guys.........there are many sex acts that wont produce children among heteros.......are all those wrong too

havent you ever had protected sex
or given or recievd oral??????

come on.......find a better argument than the whole reproduction thing

quote:

---

If homosexuality IS a choice, should it be systematically eliminated from humanity?

---

In my opinion, no.

Because it is not physically harmful.

And emotional states or bad behavior from any homosexuals cannot be accurately attributed to being caused by homosexuality any more than criminal heteros being criminal from being hetero.

Especially when social intolerance is not being factored, because that affects crime, poverty, and emotional health.

quote:

---

I would say if it IS a choice, it should be eliminated, because it creates an unnecessary diversity amongst people.

---

It creates nothing, its exists. Diversity exists, negative feelings about diversity comes through those who will not accept it as part of natural society, usually due to any number of manifestations of fear of that which is different. Fear that, untill homosexuality is proven to be harmful, is irrational.

And it would be no more guilty of creating diversity than heterosexuality does by not allowing for any deviation which does exist.

By being eliminated it would then be made illegal, which would eliminate nothing and only criminalize more human curiosity and experimentation (that will persist regardless), as well as attempt to eliminate the unknown possible to probable benefits or even necessities to having such diversity or even choice.

What you suggest also suggests that cultures should not differ, because of the creation of diversity. I would never force myself to eat crazy shit on Fear Factor (unless on Fear Factor for good money), doesn't mean I shouldn't or that it should be illegal or eliminated. Under the right circumstances it could be necessary for survival.

Nor would I force my child's hand in marriage, but some cultures do, even against homosexual marriage.

Since I understand homosexuality to have been normal and accepted practice, or more appropriately all sexuality, I cannot defend the instinctive notion people present on the most sensible argument, that it seems unnatural.

This is a nature nurture debate in that at some point in some culture either homosexuality began and or became accepted or unaccepted.

Basically what I'm submitting is the perspective that we must keep in mind that there is a strong prejudice against homosexuality in large culture groups that have political and social influence. That colors the argument and is the environment in and or out of our individual households that most of us were born into.

So there is another perfectly realistic explanation to people's negative outlook on homosexuality. Prejudice, Blacks in America and Hitler and Stalin types are all the example needed in the strength and extents to which prejudice can achieve.

I would say never to be quicker to trust instincts of intolerance over tolerance.

As for the family issue, though the focus is on parenting, I'd like to remind that all homosexuals come from families of some sort.

But that they also have raised and helped raise children like siblings, their own or "adopted" children, with both possitive and negative results like any other.

I've already also mentioned that life already creates situations where mothers or fathers are killed or where multiple types of role models exist in big families, or when living with grandparents.

Resisting natural diversity is most likely futile anyway, whereas rethinking negative conotations may not.

But thats just speculation of course.

if it is a choice, there is no reason for it to be eliminated unless it is proven that it causes different (negative) effects than hetero sex does.

as usual this ties in to a lot of other discussions. it would seem that having both a mother and a father is more balanced, yet the affects of having two mothers or two fathers may have advantages not yet known.

pretty much what leftwood said.

maybe im going off on this a bit too far. but it seems from that logic none of us should be doing much of anything aside from eat, sleep, think. the more complex a mind the more likely deviances will occur. humans have the most complex brains and have the most deviances. perhaps at some point certain deviances become traits. like having brown hair, except it involves the brain.

Sex...hmm....

You know if homosexuality is proven to be genetic, we're all wrong. Many of the great artists and scholars of history were homosexual, is that really a mental impurity if they still contributed greatly to the progress of mankind?

What if I consider oral sex to be wrong, your body isn't designed to get anything out of that - actually, doing that could lead to serious passing of infections and whatnot because of the nature of genetalia, given that reproductive bodily fluids have a higher acidity than that of saliva in the mouth, that is really biologically backwards. But we do it anyway, well some of us that is, is that wrong?

I don't see homosexuality as being a product of molestation or some sort of abnormal abuse, that's a gross assumption of the entire homosexual population in the world. There are animals that are homosexual, the latest being some special group of goats that commit homosexual acts - were THEY molested too?

The original post is all fruitless if you ask me. I have plent of gay and lesbian friends and I'll tell you they are quite healthy and far from what they're being accused of, this mental illness business. That's a terrible thing to say.

If homosexuality is a choice, (not based on a genetic predisposition towards homosexuality), it makes several blaring declarations about the individual's perspective towards traditional membership in mainstream society.

Society: an enduring and cooperating social group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationships through interaction with one another or a broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests.

Choosing to be homosexual removes one's responsiblity to contribute to society as it is structured. It's actually a choice to promote another type of society, its activities and interests

It's easiest to key in on the fact that homosexuality lacks the ability to naturally grow its ranks through procreation. But this is only one apparent contradiction the homosexual social grouping represents.

Someone might argue that homosexual society increases its ranks by being a genetic occurrence naturally found in human beings.

This does not negate the fact that the homosexual life represents an exchange of one social contract for another.

This makes the activity fruitless on many levels because one social order doesn't generally sustain or contribute to the endurance of another.

So from the perspective of mainstream society homosexuality is non-productive because it doen't re-produce that very society.

Expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior for a member of homosexual society is actually counterproductive for the other society.

To continue to say homosexuals contribute to the rearing of children is not to say that they are not deviant. Unless they are contradicting themselves, the homosexual is going to promote their society and corresponding philosophy.

I wonder if the tables were turned and heterosexuals were the minority or deviants from social order if we would ignore the differences and what they symbolize and represent.

Homosexuality is not a completely non-productive lifestyle. I just believe that ultimately there will always be the fact that it is activity that does not produce what society needs to continue.

In the context of heterosexual society homosexuality is not reasonable or "sane".

quote:

---

Society: an enduring and cooperating social group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationships

---

Notice the plural of patterns and relationships.

quote:

---

Choosing to be homosexual removes one's responsiblity to contribute to society as it is structured.

---

If you assume homosexuality to not be a natural part of structured society, or a natural pattern of relationship, and since homosexuality has existed for as long as it has, your assertion is obviously an incorrect assumption.

Not to mention that homosexuals contribute to society as structered making the statement blatantly innaccurate.

quote:

---

It's easiest to key in on the fact that homosexuality lacks the ability to naturally grow its ranks through procreation.

---

Homosexuals naturally procreate, obviously not physically with their same sex partners.

quote:

---

This does not negate the fact that the homosexual life represents an exchange of one social contract for another.

---

Now society is under contract of sexual behavior, or are you trying to promote an ideal that exists within some beliefs within, what is supposed to be, our free, open, inclusive, and accepting society that understands we are free to live non harmful productive lives how we like?

Your logic holds no water in a society of mixed cultures, races, idealogies, religions etc.

There is no social contract being violated by homosexuality, the only social contract being violated in relation to homosexuality is other's lack of acceptance in our society of open acceptance, or at least tolerance.

quote:

---

So from the perspective of mainstream society homosexuality is non-productive because it doen't re-produce that very society.

---

Mainstream society inludes homosexuality, your biased point of view my not allow you to see this reality, but it is true, as it has been for quite some time as homosexuals have existed and participated even in every level of society. Do not hastily put words in other's mouths.

quote:

---

Expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior for a member of homosexual society is actually counterproductive for the other society.

---

Here is an overgeneralization that leaves on to ask what is being taught. Bigotry over acceptance? Segregation over inclusion? Fear and hate over love and acceptance?

From what I understand and have been taught, these are the wrong teachings of societies when referring to non harmful evidently natural behaviors and the HUMAN BEINGS who exhibit them.

quote:

---

Homosexuality is not a completely non-productive lifestyle. I just believe that ultimately there will always be the fact that it is activity that does not produce what society needs to continue.

---

What does it not produce that society needs to continue?

quote:

---

In the context of heterosexual society homosexuality is not reasonable or "sane".

---

This is yet another flaw in your thinking, there is no such thing as an exclusive heterosexual society. They exist within sexual societies, which include many forms of sexuality, even heterosexuality is a generalization that is made of many categories.

Within hetero there is monogomy, multiple spouses male or female, partner exhange or Swingers, group sex, even beastiality can be classified as hetero as long as the animal is of opposite gender.

Many accepted and abhored within this "society" that you feel exists independant of the rest.

You are simply remarking on the teachings of select groups of people who promote exclusiveness and negativity towards those outside of their beliefs. Which I submit to be counterproductive to society in general, as segragation and negative unfounded "beliefs" are what destroy societies.

quote:

---

In the context of heterosexual society homosexuality is not reasonable or "sane".

---

So to reiterate, this view against homosexuality in the context of society in general is not reasonable or "sane". It is indeed counterproductive, negative, unfounded, and all the things people worry about homosexuality being or creating.

One day perhaps, people will learn the lesson being repeated over and over again, we are all human, we are all different yet the same, and what you are is not necessarily what others are or should be.

Seeing as how the human race is overpopulating, and destroying our beautiful home, don't you think it better to have a society filled with people who DON'T have children?

I mean, we wage war with each other, generally shit on the neighbours we have in our own countries and show little to no concern over the fact that we are damaging the environment beyond repair.

Yet you would say that the act of having bountiful amounts of unprotected sex without a single chance of pregnancy is a BAD THING?!!

If it is a deviation which is necessary for existence--than it is not really a "deviation". Given you know not what purpose homosexuality does serve or contributes...you cant assume "because it exists" it is necessary or alright..


But because it has proven not to be an equal preference of any sexual act. Aside from tall, short, skinny, fat..big breastss-any number of preferences a hetero/or homo..would choose. This preference is for one of the same sex.

Homos cannot argue heterosexuality as fruitless.-but heteros can argue homosexuality as so.

Because we dont know its purpose.


You may argue that it has purpose-because we have no proof that it does or doesnt.

but it is a preference.-which means it is not necessary for the survival of anyone..including themselves.



reply to..that girls post..--"Many of the great artists and scholars of history were homosexual, is that really a mental impurity if they still contributed greatly to the progress of mankind?"

sexual preference is ..a sexual preference. W/e contributions this man has made to humanity--has nothing to do with his sexual preference. Although you may assume that this preference has allowed him more insight and ability in developing helpful and progressive..w/e's. The ability also, is proven to exist in heterosexuals and homosexuals..

quote:

---

Given you know not what purpose homosexuality does serve or contributes...you cant assume "because it exists" it is necessary or alright..

---

No different than the human race itself, and nor can you assume its not alright, you have no logical basis for your continually negative assertions. Nor do you seem to realize your classification of thinking (ignorant bigotry). It wouldn't be so if you simply admitted lack of understanding, or even just expressed dissagreement, but you desire eradication, you speak of assured assumptions of mental dysfunction, fruitlessness, dangerous.

I don't see what warrants such drastic emotionally driven opinion.

quote:

---

Homos cannot argue heterosexuality as fruitless.-but heteros can argue homosexuality as so.

Because we dont know its purpose.

---

Again, "No different than the human race itself".

quote:

---

but it is a preference.-which means it is not necessary for the survival of anyone..including themselves.

---

Freakishly repetative assumptions, WE DON'T KNOW WHY, IT MAY NOT BE PREFERRENCE, and if it were, they are law abiding citizens with protected rights that THEY are allowed to choose, regardless of irrelevant theories for or against them.

quote:

---

sexual preference is ..a sexual preference.

---

refer to above.

quote:

---

W/e contributions this man has made to humanity--has nothing to do with his sexual preference. Although you may assume that this preference has allowed him more insight and ability in developing helpful and progressive..w/e's. The ability also, is proven to exist in heterosexuals and homosexuals..

---

What the hell are you talking about and what is your point, so now they are both productive and you still see them as detremental, and they can reproduce, so what is your problem with them now, and be specific because right now I don't understand because you are not basing anything on rational proven fact, just theoretical negativity.

If you dont have to lay in bed with them why the hell do you care?? Spend time talking about somthing that will actually help the world--not stir up more drama