Is homosexuality a disease?
NCfan
Posts: 945
First, let me say that I started this thread just to see what people think.... not becuase I'm against gay people. I have many gay friends and I think the government should allow homosexuals all the rights and liberties as they do heterosexuals. I also agree that being gay is not a choice, you are born that way.
That being said, let's look at nature. It is a fact that homosexuality is an anomally among animals. The vast majority of animals are genetically programed to be attracted to the opposite sex to ensure the survival of the species. Therefore, it seems that something "goes wrong" when humans develop to be homosexuals. This argument might sounds bigoted, but it holds some truth. Humans are not supposed to be autistic no more than they are supposed to be gay. It is not natures way for species to be homosexual. In other words, gays will ALWAYS be a small minority of the population regardless how accepted they are by society or the government.
I look at this fact when contemplating if gay couples should be allowed to raise children... a la Mary Chaney. I'm not saying the government should step in, I just feel that it is morally wrong towards the child for them to be raised in a homosexual household.
I feel that it serves the parents more than the child. I have no problem with people proclaiming their homosexuality. But why would they want to put a child in the precarious situation of being raised in that environment??? It seems amoral and selfish to me. Nature has given us the rules by which species procreate. It is unatural for gays to have children, it is synthetic...
Your thoughts?
Let me also say that I can see the case for adoption much more so than say a gay women who gets impregnated in order to have children.
That being said, let's look at nature. It is a fact that homosexuality is an anomally among animals. The vast majority of animals are genetically programed to be attracted to the opposite sex to ensure the survival of the species. Therefore, it seems that something "goes wrong" when humans develop to be homosexuals. This argument might sounds bigoted, but it holds some truth. Humans are not supposed to be autistic no more than they are supposed to be gay. It is not natures way for species to be homosexual. In other words, gays will ALWAYS be a small minority of the population regardless how accepted they are by society or the government.
I look at this fact when contemplating if gay couples should be allowed to raise children... a la Mary Chaney. I'm not saying the government should step in, I just feel that it is morally wrong towards the child for them to be raised in a homosexual household.
I feel that it serves the parents more than the child. I have no problem with people proclaiming their homosexuality. But why would they want to put a child in the precarious situation of being raised in that environment??? It seems amoral and selfish to me. Nature has given us the rules by which species procreate. It is unatural for gays to have children, it is synthetic...
Your thoughts?
Let me also say that I can see the case for adoption much more so than say a gay women who gets impregnated in order to have children.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
should we not allow schizophrenics or autistics to marry then? should we not allow them to have kids? if you go to war in iraq and come back with PTSD, should we not allow you to marry or have a family? none of these are normal, yet we do not accept discrimination against them.
do we neuteur the mentally ill or autistic? should we?
people put children into that situation becos it is NOT precarious. 2 loving parents is not precarious. no more so than a single mom with little education, or 2 parents where one is alcoholic. yet you'd never advocate denying them children. furthermore, even IF it is a "disease" as you say, it is genetic and cannot be passed to the child as you seem to fear, the child is already born.
Your analogy misses the point. Yes, it is unatural for infertile couples to have children. But it is natural (as in true nature) for a man and woman to have a child. It is only through technology and a sperm donor that a lesbian can have a child. Do you see the difference?
I agree with this.
For me, none of this is relevant. Neither is the born vs. choice arguement. I am pro-choice on everything from reproduction to guns to drugs to employment law to recreational activies, so sexual orientation's "cause" is inimportant to me.
There are many hetero households that shouldn't have kids. There are many homo households that would be very nice environments for kids to be nurtured and raised in.
It is also "unnatural" for infertile heteros to breed as well. But in vetro fertilization, fertility drugs, and adoption have given them the opportunity to be parents. Since they are also anomolies of nature should they be denied children?
it is only through technology and a sperm donor than an infertile couple can have a child. so no, i dont. either way, you're born with a genetic "disease" as you say, and if that's your rationalization for prohibiting someone from raising a child, then you have to be consistent.
Dude, what is your deal? In no way do I come off being against gay people in my post. I love gay people the same as anyone else. One of the most influential and revered people in my life is gay. I do not fear gay people as you say, I embrace them.
That being said, it would be nice if you addressed my point about it being unnatural for two women to raise a child.
Your problem is that you're attempting to apply success/failure standards to nature where no such standards exist.
are hetero couples that adopt synthetic as well?
on a different note, are hetero couples that don't adopt selfish?
cross the river to the eastside
What the hell is "true nature"?
im glad you love gay people and even know a few. how do they feel about you deciding they are unfit to raise a child?
and i did address the point. no, it is not unnatural. it is no more unnatural than an infertile couple using IV fertilization or adopting. ability to be loving and supprotive of a child is what makes a good parent. not who your partner is or isnt.
My argument is that it is not nature's design for two lesbians to raise a child.
Umm...even with technology two women cannot get pregnant.
Umm...it's pretty much "nature's design" for mammalian females to raise kids with other mammalian females all over the place.
soulsinging already said it. without technology and/or a lot of money, infertile or impotent heteros cannot concieve.
oh and just because someone may identify as a lesbian, doesn't mean she couldn't actually have sex with a man to get pregnant.
cross the river to the eastside
I guess I don't know what this means. By this logic it is not natures design that we drive automobiles or use computers either, but I'm happy I do.
Good lord. You know what I mean, yet I'll try again. A lesbian couple is incapable of conceiving on their own. Therefore, it seems that by nature's design they are incapable of having children. How is that incorrect?
that is so not true!
it is infertile or impotent people that are not capable.
cross the river to the eastside
okay, tell me then Einstein how two women can fuck and knock each other up? Give me a break....
Correct. This is as true today as it was 100,000 years ago. Two women sitting alone on this planet with all the technology in the world cannot conceive a child. They still need a dude, or at least that dude's sperm.
Nature's design, particularly for us, is to use technology. It's pretty much all we have. So I think you'd be best in just trusting in what nature gave us, rather than trying to pick and choose at the offering plate.
if you look at all of nature - you will see there are many examples of children being raised by multiple women (lesbian or not) or even just a mom ... so, why wouldn't two moms be just as good if not better ... or even cultural instances in history where it was often the women's role to raise the children while men hunt ...
IMO there are too many people, there are too many children, there are too many people nuturing mutated people, there are far too many 'singles' and 'couples' who are unfit to raise children(nearly all, it's a learning experiment), abort the abnormal, and get rid off those who are different(myself included), and religion, well just crucify them all!
that's not the point i'm making. i'm saying that a lesbian is capable of getting pregnant. an infertile woman is not. infertile/impotent couples have to use technology to have a kid or they have to buy one. how is that okay and a lesbian couple doing the same thing (with additional options even) not okay?
cross the river to the eastside
and without technology, infertile couples cannot get pregnant either. YOU are ignoring this point. you said it yourself: human endeavor has given us the medical and technological ability to impregnate a couple that would otherwise never be able to conceive... whether it be becos of homosexuality or infertility.
nature's design had nothing to do with couples raising children. it had to do with sperm and egg being necessary. at the dawn of civilization, it was not parents who raised the children, it was the tribe. all the adults raised all the children collectively. monogamy and partnering is a human social institution, not a natural one.
an infertile couple COULD conceive if they weren't infertile. or they can use technology.
by the same logic, a homosexual couple COULD conceive if they weren't homosexual. or they can use technology.
there is no difference. a loving family is far more important to raising a child than the gender of those in the family.
Amen.... now there is a comment I can respect. I might not agree necessarily on the grounds that just because something is capable of happening does not mean that it should. Technology will give us the ability to clone ourselves, but I don't necesarily think that we should. But thanks for acknoweging where I'm coming from!
tell me how an impotent man can fuck and knock his wife up?
What in the fuck.... Dude, I'm not talking about an individual couple here or there that are impotent. I'm saying that overall, two women are incapable of reproducing on their own. Sure, there are infertile hetero couples all over the place. But normal hetero couples are capable of reproducing. Normal homo couples are not...... understand???????????
Arguably, the.... act (oh, I feel dirty just saying "act")..... should be performed with a sheet over the woman; but, I'm no prude, so I'll keep that one in the "Optional" file.
What, do you not have any infertile/impotent couples as friends?
cross the river to the eastside
Neither would I. But to dismiss it somehow as "not part of nature's plan" makes absolutely no sense, given the fact that we would never have been able to accomplish it in the first place without "nature's plan". Furthermore, you're also probably making a rather foolish assumption that nature has a plan to begin with.
I don't think we should do that either, but it certainly wouldn't be a violation of nature.