I don't have a problem with gays but...

ruckstande

Posts mostly from the shitter.
Apr 2, 2005
14,888
4,434
678
South Jersey
#1
I just don't get the science of being gay. I just read this article and it pissed me off.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...gender-neutral_n_1220719.html?ref=mostpopular
After five years of raising their child gender neutral, English couple Beck Laxton, and her partner Kieran Cooper have revealed the sex of their boy Sasha, according to The Telegraph.

"I wanted to avoid all that stereotyping," Laxton told the Telegraph. "Stereotypes seem fundamentally stupid. Why would you want to slot people into boxes?"

Laxton said the couple decided to reveal Sasha's sex after it became tougher to conceal once he started primary school.

The couple didn't ask the midwife who delivered Sasha what his sex was until 30 minutes after he was born, according to the Sun.

"I think finding out the sex at the scan is awful. I'd ban it," Laxton told the Sun. "It's like opening your presents before Christmas, and I worry that people start making all these presumptions about what the child's going to be like."

The Herald Sun notes that Laxton and Cooper are not the only couple to make headlines by not revealing the sex of their child. In May a Toronto couple refused to reveal their child Storm's sex so the infant could be "free of societal norms regarding gender."
I just don't understand how being gay is normal and not considered a "defect". I'm pretty sure that all of humanity is upheld to some sort of standard. People are born with 10 fingers, 10 toes, 2 arms, 2 legs, etc. If a condition exists where this is not occurring normally, science will attempt to root out a cause of this condition and treat it in some way. Because people with down syndrome need to feel like they are normal and a part of society does this mean that science doesn't look for a treatment or prevention of this? Is it now wrong to find a cure to any condition because it would be offensive? If sex between a man and a woman is genetically designed by evolution than why wouldn't there be some sort of search for a cure for gay? If people choose to be gay have at it. I could give a fuck. But why is this?

This?

or This?

Normal?
 

Lord Zero

Viciously Silly
Aug 25, 2008
54,127
12,916
373
Atlanta, GA
#2
First, let's get this out of the way:

If people choose to be gay have at it. I could give a fuck.
Homosexuality and bisexuality aren't choices. If you doubt that, ask a gay person who grew up in a devoutly religious, homophobic household. They can tell you about all the nights they spent crying in fear of Hell while desperately praying to God to make them straight.

Second, those pictures you posted are of stereotypes. More importantly, their style choices and other traits have nothing to do with their sexual orientation. That's just who they are as people. One's sexuality is not one's personality. Besides, sexual identity and gender identity are two different, independent concepts.

Third, the article you posted has nothing do with homosexuality. It's all gender politics.

The psychological, psychiatric, and biological scientific and medical communities for decades maintained that homosexuality was a mental disorder that guaranteed a life of misery using a variety of stupid, baseless, and morality-based theories. Every time one of these theories was disproven by a fringe scientists who actually followed the rules of evidence, another previously disproven theory would take it's place. By the time gays were demanding that homosexuality be removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in the 1970s, the most popular "scientific" arguments against homosexuality being normal had already been disproven at least twice during the 19th and 20th centuries. When the American Psychiatric Association was forced by public criticism to start examining the evidence regarding the subject, they realized they had none and decided that they had no choice but to remove homosexuality from the DSM.

By the way, fun fact: Homosexual and bisexual behavior is frequently observed in animals other than humans.

Is it now wrong to find a cure to any condition because it would be offensive?
If someone is offended by homosexuality, it's the offended person's problem. Why should a cure be found for offended people's problems?
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,784
18,532
513
Kingdom of Charis
#3
By the way, fun fact: Homosexual and bisexual behavior is frequently observed in animals other than humans.
But it is still a genetic dead end.

Look, I think the problem here is with the word "defect" and with words in general. Looking at it from a completely neutral perspective, creatures that are not attracted to the opposite sex will not reproduce. Does that make them bad? Absolutely fucking not. But those animals in nature who are gay will not propagate their genes. Human civilization has afforded the homosexual community the ability to reproduce, but it is an artificial construct of our society. Looking at it from a biological standpoint, it is a "defect" in the process of reproduction.

That being said, who gives a fuck? This isn't Sparta. And besides, it's not like homosexuality is hereditary.

So yes, in a sense it is a defect, but in the same way that anyone born with some hereditary condition or genetic defect, meaning that it doesn't diminish their other capabilities as human beings.


Here's where politics come into this. Despite the fact that I'm am arguing on the side of the gay community, I have had fights with homosexuals about this particular argument, and it all goes back to words and the images they trigger in our heads. The words "defect" simply has too much societal baggage to be safely applied to something like homosexuality. So let's call it a kink in the system. Let's posit that the defect here is not the sexual orientation, but the lack of physical means to reproduce in homosexual fashion. You are not defective because you are gay. You are defective because you can't have sex with another man and have a baby. Does that make sense? I don't know. I'm rambling.
 

LiddyRules

I'm Gonna Be The Bestest Pilot In The Whole Galaxy
Jun 1, 2005
141,477
49,801
644
#4
I think the original poster is making like five different arguments, none of which really connect to the other ones. I also dislike the word defect. Think of homosexuality like red hair. Red heads are considered monsters, but no one is really going around curing red hair.

Also, I don't think Snooki's gay. I don't see a problem with the first guy. And I think the second guy is suffering from hipsteritis, which is a far more dangerous and horrible condition than homosexuality.
 

ruckstande

Posts mostly from the shitter.
Apr 2, 2005
14,888
4,434
678
South Jersey
#5
First, let's get this out of the way:


Homosexuality and bisexuality aren't choices. If you doubt that, ask a gay person who grew up in a devoutly religious, homophobic household. They can tell you about all the nights they spent crying in fear of Hell while desperately praying to God to make them straight.
I'm saying things based on no factual basis whatsover. I know homosexuality and bisexuality aren't choices but some people do choose to be gay. I know there have been plenty of celebs in the media who claim to be gay then guess what, they aren't anymore. I'm not saying they were lying about being gay in the first place but somewhere they aren't being honest.
Second, those pictures you posted are of stereotypes. More importantly, their style choices and other traits have nothing to do with their sexual orientation. That's just who they are as people. One's sexuality is not one's personality. Besides, sexual identity and gender identity are two different, independent concepts.
I know they are stereotypes. They are far to the side of the spectrum. However, I can't believe that in many cases they're sexuality is not part of they're personality
Third, the article you posted has nothing do with homosexuality. It's all gender politics.
But now this gender politics in infringing on what is supposed to be a matter of natural selection. This couple is trying to mask this child from a gender identity because they feel that society could hurt this snowflake if they are looked at as a boy or girl when it just is supposed to be something they are born with.
The psychological, psychiatric, and biological scientific and medical communities for decades maintained that homosexuality was a mental disorder that guaranteed a life of misery using a variety of stupid, baseless, and morality-based theories. Every time one of these theories was disproven by a fringe scientists who actually followed the rules of evidence, another previously disproven theory would take it's place. By the time gays were demanding that homosexuality be removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in the 1970s, the most popular "scientific" arguments against homosexuality being normal had already been disproven at least twice during the 19th and 20th centuries. When the American Psychiatric Association was forced by public criticism to start examining the evidence regarding the subject, they realized they had none and decided that they had no choice but to remove homosexuality from the DSM.
Well it doesn't sound like a mental disorder but wouldn't it be some sort of genetic disorder? Somewhere over the span of human evolution, men got a dick, chicks had vaginas, and people were destined to procreate. Sure there were gay orgies and the like in Roman times but was this by choice or were they born this way? Again, whatever the answer is I'm fine with. I just don't see why humans just didn't evolve into asexual beings in the first place.

By the way, fun fact: Homosexual and bisexual behavior is frequently observed in animals other than humans.
How frequent? Same as in humans?



If someone is offended by homosexuality, it's the offended person's problem. Why should a cure be found for offended people's problems?
The point is if it is a genetic change from the norm, why wouldn't some sort of treatment be researched for it like anything else that would be considered a genetic abnormality.
 

OccupyWackbag

Registered User
Dec 12, 2011
3,416
188
98
#6
My roommate fucking puts soooooo much salt and other seasonings on meat before cooking it. I can't stand it when he makes burgers and just now he cooked steak and I couldn't even taste the meat. It was fucking disgusting. Is this like one of those things that black people just do? Don't get me wrong I season my steaks too but not to the point where I can't taste the meat. My tongue is literally tingling right now. It was like a fucking salt lick!
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,784
18,532
513
Kingdom of Charis
#7
I think the original poster is making like five different arguments, none of which really connect to the other ones. I also dislike the word defect. Think of homosexuality like red hair. Red heads are considered monsters, but no one is really going around curing red hair.

Also, I don't think Snooki's gay. I don't see a problem with the first guy. And I think the second guy is suffering from hipsteritis, which is far more a dangerous and horrible condition than homosexuality.
The problem is mixing regular people speak and scientific speak. The word "defect" when considered scientifically, doesn't really have a negative connotation. It's more like "oh, this thing that in most cases does A seems to be doing B." A not being something above or below B, but merely something else.

And I'm ashamed to say I know the second guy is one of the dudes who won Project Runway. I'm blanking on his name right now. It's something silly.
 

LiddyRules

I'm Gonna Be The Bestest Pilot In The Whole Galaxy
Jun 1, 2005
141,477
49,801
644
#8
My roommate fucking puts soooooo much salt and other seasonings on meat before cooking it. I can't stand it when he makes burgers and just now he cooked steak and I couldn't even taste the meat. It was fucking disgusting. Is this like one of those things that black people just do? Don't get me wrong I season my steaks too but not to the point where I can't taste the meat. My tongue is literally tingling right now. It was like a fucking salt lick!
Maybe he should have just put in 60 Hz of salt.
 

ruckstande

Posts mostly from the shitter.
Apr 2, 2005
14,888
4,434
678
South Jersey
#10
But it is still a genetic dead end.

Look, I think the problem here is with the word "defect" and with words in general. Looking at it from a completely neutral perspective, creatures that are not attracted to the opposite sex will not reproduce. Does that make them bad? Absolutely fucking not. But those animals in nature who are gay will not propagate their genes. Human civilization has afforded the homosexual community the ability to reproduce, but it is an artificial construct of our society. Looking at it from a biological standpoint, it is a "defect" in the process of reproduction.

That being said, who gives a fuck? This isn't Sparta. And besides, it's not like homosexuality is hereditary.

So yes, in a sense it is a defect, but in the same way that anyone born with some hereditary condition or genetic defect, meaning that it doesn't diminish their other capabilities as human beings.


Here's where politics come into this. Despite the fact that I'm am arguing on the side of the gay community, I have had fights with homosexuals about this particular argument, and it all goes back to words and the images they trigger in our heads. The words "defect" simply has too much societal baggage to be safely applied to something like homosexuality. So let's call it a kink in the system. Let's posit that the defect here is not the sexual orientation, but the lack of physical means to reproduce in homosexual fashion. You are not defective because you are gay. You are defective because you can't have sex with another man and have a baby. Does that make sense? I don't know. I'm rambling.
I'm not arguing for any side of the community. My point is just why is this not treated like something that is abnormal. Is it still okay to call things abnormal? I'm fat, in Jersey that is normal? Can I say that or would I be lying when I say most Jersey people are obese fatsos? I also have bad vision. I live a normal life with glasses. In my case I have a genetic defect that prevents me from seeing without any correction. Should I be offended if someone tries to treat bad eyes from birth? I'm pretty sure 20/20 vision is normal.
 

LiddyRules

I'm Gonna Be The Bestest Pilot In The Whole Galaxy
Jun 1, 2005
141,477
49,801
644
#11
I'm not arguing for any side of the community. My point is just why is this not treated like something that is abnormal. Is it still okay to call things abnormal? I'm fat, in Jersey that is normal? Can I say that or would I be lying when I say most Jersey people are obese fatsos? I also have bad vision. I live a normal life with glasses. In my case I have a genetic defect that prevents me from seeing without any correction. Should I be offended if someone tries to treat bad eyes from birth? I'm pretty sure 20/20 vision is normal.
I still think gay is considered abnormal. Also, there are things that hinder the life of the individual (e.g. bad vision, Down's syndrome) and things that don't really hinder the life of the individual but long term it may hinder the species as a whole (e.g. homosexuality, red hair). And there are social constructs vs. medical problems.
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,784
18,532
513
Kingdom of Charis
#12
I still think gay is considered abnormal. Also, there are things that hinder the life of the individual (e.g. bad vision, Down's syndrome) and things that don't really hinder the life of the individual but long term it may hinder the species as a whole (e.g. homosexuality, red hair). And there are social constructs vs. medical problems.
But unlike gingerness, homosexuality does hinder the individual's ability to reproduce (again, setting human civilization aside for a second). But still, I don't think that fact should have any bearing on how homosexuals are viewed and treated. There are plenty of straight people who are born barren but are not treated any differently for it.
 

Lord Zero

Viciously Silly
Aug 25, 2008
54,127
12,916
373
Atlanta, GA
#13
But it is still a genetic dead end.

Look, I think the problem here is with the word "defect" and with words in general. Looking at it from a completely neutral perspective, creatures that are not attracted to the opposite sex will not reproduce. Does that make them bad? Absolutely fucking not. But those animals in nature who are gay will not propagate their genes. Human civilization has afforded the homosexual community the ability to reproduce, but it is an artificial construct of our society. Looking at it from a biological standpoint, it is a "defect" in the process of reproduction.
There is a problem with that.

Human civilization has afforded the homosexual community the ability to reproduce
Homosexuals have always had the ability to reproduce (just not with each other). Many homosexuals have the urge to reproduce and, if they wanted to, could knock a woman up and adopt the baby. Nothing technological about that.
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,784
18,532
513
Kingdom of Charis
#14
There is a problem with that.



Homosexuals have always the ability to reproduce (just not with each other). Many homosexuals have the urge to reproduce and, if they wanted to, could knock a woman up and adopt the baby. Nothing technological about that.
But does that happen in nature, or is that a product of your higher reasoning as a human? I'm seriously asking. Do those homosexual animals observed in the wild reproduce heterosexually?

And again, we are looking at this in as dry a sense as you can. Think of any animal as a machine that essentially does 3 things: eats, creates waste, and reproduces. Unless homosexuality comes with a built-in mechanism that still pushes you toward heterosexual reproduction, there is a kink in the system. Just like people who are born blind. They still have eyes and the biological mechanism to see, but it just doesn't work. If reproduction is only something that a homosexual creature can REASON doing (i.e by using logical higher thought), then homosexuality itself is a kink because you have the organs to reproduce heterosexually, but you want to reproduce homosexually.

But, since life is not a hypothetical lab, this is all a moot point because homosexual humans are entirely capable of normal reproduction, so like I said earlier, who gives a fuck?
 

ruckstande

Posts mostly from the shitter.
Apr 2, 2005
14,888
4,434
678
South Jersey
#15
But unlike gingerness, homosexuality does hinder the individual's ability to reproduce (again, setting human civilization aside for a second). But still, I don't think that fact should have any bearing on how homosexuals are viewed and treated. There are plenty of straight people who are born barren but are not treated any differently for it.
But that's not even the argument here. How gays are viewed or accepted in society isn't what I am saying. I'm talking about the genetics of someone being born gay. Basically saying the same thing about being born barren. A woman who is born barren should be treated no different but like gays, a woman was treated like shit if she couldn't bear a man's offspring. Is it wrong to consider that abnormal and search for a cure to weed that out from happening at all in future generations?
 

ruckstande

Posts mostly from the shitter.
Apr 2, 2005
14,888
4,434
678
South Jersey
#16
There is a problem with that.



Homosexuals have always the ability to reproduce (just not with each other). Many homosexuals have the urge to reproduce and, if they wanted to, could knock a woman up and adopt the baby. Nothing technological about that.
I guess that is another discussion for another time but is reproduction and sex the same thing? I love having sex with my wife but no real desire to have a child. Is there something wrong with me genetically because I don't find the pitter patter of little feet cute? I plan on having a kid with my wife but I don't feel this sense of mortality right now if I don't. I can't say that my feelings won't change if I'm 65 and childless though.
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,784
18,532
513
Kingdom of Charis
#17
I guess that is another discussion for another time but is reproduction and sex the same thing? I love having sex with my wife but no real desire to have a child. Is there something wrong with me genetically because I don't find the pitter patter of little feet cute? I plan on having a kid with my wife but I don't feel this sense of mortality right now if I don't. I can't say that my feelings won't change if I'm 65 and childless though.
That is all the byproduct of higher thought. Humans have broken through the barrier of just doing what creatures instinctually do. Not many Zebras out there going "I don't have time to have kids!"
 

Lord Zero

Viciously Silly
Aug 25, 2008
54,127
12,916
373
Atlanta, GA
#18
some people do choose to be gay.
No they don't. Those people are bisexuals who don't understand their own sexual make-up.

I know there have been plenty of celebs in the media who claim to be gay then guess what, they aren't anymore.
Coming out as gay or bisexual can be very advantageous to one's career. Then again, I point to the point I made above. If any group of people were at risk of being completely self-unaware, it's celebrities. Bunch of twits.

I'm not saying they were lying about being gay in the first place but somewhere they aren't being honest.
It's not unusual for bisexuals to self-identify as gay because of the discrimination they would face from the gay community as well as the straight community. (In our politically correct society, you don't hear about that last thing much.)
 

Lord Zero

Viciously Silly
Aug 25, 2008
54,127
12,916
373
Atlanta, GA
#19
Well it doesn't sound like a mental disorder but wouldn't it be some sort of genetic disorder?
The current theory is that homosexuality is nature's population control.

The point is if it is a genetic change from the norm, why wouldn't some sort of treatment be researched for it like anything else that would be considered a genetic abnormality.
1. Homosexuality isn't contagious, therefore it doesn't threaten the survival of the species. There's no need for a cure.

2. Some people are working for a cure but not for the pure reason of wanting to insure the continuation of the human race. They won't be successful. Pretty much every reputable study shows that sexual orientation can't be changed or influenced.
 

Lord Zero

Viciously Silly
Aug 25, 2008
54,127
12,916
373
Atlanta, GA
#20
But does that happen in nature, or is that a product of your higher reasoning as a human?
I think it's the product of higher reasoning.

I'm seriously asking. Do those homosexual animals observed in the wild reproduce heterosexually?
I don't know but maybe. Biologically speaking, there's nothing stopping it. Nothing but the animal's will.
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,784
18,532
513
Kingdom of Charis
#21
I think it's the product of higher reasoning.



I don't know but maybe. Biologically speaking, there's nothing it. Nothing but the animal's will.
Yeah. Like I said, this is all just hypothetical talk anyway. In the real world none of this really applies nowadays.
 

Jacuzzi Billy

Watching PTI
Donator
Mar 22, 2006
42,091
21,762
628
Red Jacuzzi
#22
Why don't gays just stop fucking men? I don't get to fuck who I want to, it ain't so bad.