Homophobia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlowSon

Homosexuality is not the same difference as fans of different football clubs or political sights. It is antinatural sickness, degeneracy. No different than pedofilia, necrofilia, family-filia etc.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EuroTroll

I'd like to focus on the word 'antinatural'.

I believe there are over 1500 animal species that have been observed with homosexual behaviour. Are they also 'antinatural'?

If so, what is 'natural', i.e. 'of nature'?

---

First of all I'd like to clarify that I'm not homophobic... though I know saying that immediately makes it suspicious!

However, though I disagree massively with it being like pedophilia as that causes direct harm and has a victim, I sort of see Slowson's view.If homosexuality is acceptable, why is incest so frowned upon, and necrophilia? Surely a man and a woman is the 'normal' scheme of things, so why is a brother and sister in a relationship so disgusting and frowned upon, yet 2 unrelated men is acceptable?

As for EuroTroll's, point using natural is dangerous - you get mutations which cause weird effects in all species, but doesn't mean they're stereotypically natural. Also in many animal kingdoms incest is prevalent, so saying it's ok because it's ok in nature is not correct.

Therefore despite believing everyone is able to do what they like and that homosexuality is not 'evil', I do certainly sometimes wonder why it is so widely accepted nowadays when other things are so unacceptable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlowSon

Homosexuality is not the same difference as fans of different football clubs or political sights. It is antinatural sickness, degeneracy. No different than pedofilia, necrofilia, family-filia etc.

---

You are missing the point by a millenium! It may be un-natural to some, and that is fine, but equally, it is as natural as day and night to others. Consent is a major issue that sets aside your point about paedophilia, necrophilia etc........ from homosexuality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pettersolberg29

why is incest so frowned upon

---

Well, for one, it messes up the gene pool and can lead to some serious birth defects. This of course is where we appear to differ in genetic compatability - as far as reproduction goes - to the animal kingdom.....

I don't think there is ever going to be a danger that our entire species is suddenly going to turn homosexual so I don't see why reproduction has to come into things in debates like this. Not everybody enters a relationship with the intent to reproduce of course. There are many heterosexual couples who have long relationships and decide not to have children. We don't seem to have prejudices against such individuals because people think they are wasting their abilities to have children but choose not to. Homosexuality is not a choice but a genetic fault, if that can be said, not meaning its wrong. We can't help who we are attracted to and as long as it is between two consenting adults, it can't be compared to the other awful things listed in this thread IMO. I don't see why we can't be tolerant of others even if they don't meet our own selfish expectations and I certainly don't think Children need to be shielded from such people. Its about educating those who are naive to such instances and lack of education is always going to breed intolerance. Not everybody is the same and homosexuality does no harm to anybody.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pettersolberg29

As for EuroTroll's, point using natural is dangerous - you get mutations which cause weird effects in all species, but doesn't mean they're stereotypically natural. Also in many animal kingdoms incest is prevalent, so saying it's ok because it's ok in nature is not correct.

---

I'm not saying it's ok because it's ok in nature. I'm saying that you can't say it's not ok because it's 'antinatural', or alien to nature.

To me, homosexuality and homosexual acts need no justification. Consenting adults can do what they like, so long as there are no victims to their actions.

Incest. Now that's an interesting point, actually. Should we accept an adult brother and sister having recreational sex? Perhaps we should. After all, they are free consenting adults, and noone gets hurt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Well, for one, it messes up the gene pool and can lead to some serious birth defects. This of course is where we appear to differ in genetic compatability - as far as reproduction goes - to the animal kingdom.....

---

As henners88 says, this point is irrelevant. There is no need for them to reproduce, that can still be seen as 'wrong' or illegal because there is then a risk of harm to any children. Also, like gay couples they could adopt or have IVF with another's sperm - why is this more wrong than homosexuals doing the same? The act itself is no better or worse than homosexuality in my view - both are not 'the norm', and neither cause direct harm beyond offence to others. And offence is only taken not given so that shoudn't be an issue.

I'm not condoning incest, nor am I saying homosexuality is wrong - but it's interesting that these differences arise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EuroTroll

I'm not saying it's ok because it's ok in nature. I'm saying that you can't say it's not ok because it's 'antinatural', or alien to nature.

To me, homosexuality and homosexual acts need no justification. Consenting adults can do what they like, so long as there are no victims to their actions.

Incest. Now that's an interesting point, actually. Should we accept an adult brother and sister having recreational sex? Perhaps we should. After all, they are free consenting adults, and noone gets hurt.

---

Okay, that is a fair enough point and one I agree with.

As are the other two actually! If people are consenting (and of an age where decisions are rational!) and no harm comes to anyone then why are the two viewed differently?

So you plead for tolerance to different ones, but when one refuses to agree with the mainstream homosexualism propaganda he is satanized and ridiculed. Hypocritical isn't it :dozey:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pettersolberg29

As henners88 says, this point is irrelevant. There is no need for them to reproduce, that can still be seen as 'wrong' or illegal because there is then a risk of harm to any children. Also, like gay couples they could adopt or have IVF with another's sperm - why is this more wrong than homosexuals doing the same? The act itself is no better or worse than homosexuality in my view - both are not 'the norm', and neither cause direct harm beyond offence to others. And offence is only taken not given so that shoudn't be an issue.

I'm not condoning incest, nor am I saying homosexuality is wrong - but it's interesting that these differences arise.

---

I take issue IMHO with the idea of IVF in same sex couples, as I would with siblings wanting to have children together. Homosexuals cannot naturally have children, and so why should nature be overriden?

Because we can I suppose?

And do we then allow siblings to bear children, and the birth defects that are known can arise to occur?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

I take issue with the idea of IVF in same sex couples, as I would with siblings wanting to have children together. Homosexuals cannot naturally have children, and so why should nature be overriden?

---

Because to deny them the right to do so is inherently unfair. While I appreciate your very tolerant comments further up this thread, what are you afraid of in this particular instance? We've been over this before, I know, but I resent the notion that I would automatically be an unsuitable person in your eyes to become a parent merely on grounds of my sexuality.