Debate:Why is homosexuality so bad?

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Ok, so this page was directed to the Homosexuality page on this website. I read it and I still haven't found a good reason for the hatred that is exhibited towards them. The article said that in the Netherlands there is a higher rate of mental lack of wellbeing (for want of a better term) in homosexuals and that the Netherlands is so liberal that it can't be attributed to persecution. What absolute rot. Of course there is still persecution and prejudice from the religious people in Holland towards them. And when the issue is always in the news because of the religious insensitivity towards it then it is quite clear why. I would like a straightanswer rather then redirections or quotes from the bible, with the assumption that it explains everything. Bolly Ottihw 21:11, 10 May 2007

Shhh. You're not supposed to ask that question.(There is no reasonable answer.)
Isn't it clear? Its the 'Eww' factor. A lot of people just dont like it, and find just the thought of two men having sex to be unsettling. Its just a cultural thing - a combination of inherited views, and an instinctive rejection of anything that differs from the normal idealised practices. But its not effective to go public with a justifaction as simple as 'My discomfort overrules civil rights', so those who most strongly dislike homosexuality must wrap up their views in justification - either religion, or science, or moral panic, or false accusations. This is further exagerated by the natural human response of demonising the enemy: Once someone has decided that homosexuality is bad, the confirmation bias makes it very easy for them to then decide that all homosexuals are pedophiles, or part of a shady conspiricy (The 'Homosexual Agenda') to convert others to homosexuality. - Suricou

This should be moved to Debate:Why is homosexuality so bad? Auld Nick 07:34, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Homosexuality is bad because it offers an more palatable alternative to heterosexual relationships. I mean imagine a relationship without haveing to deal with a womans problems and complaining.Rebiu 22:49, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

You are ignoring the lesbian population with that remark. That's pretty sexist, don't you think?--All Fish Welcome 23:22, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Not at all (All Fish Welcom) the same applies only from their perspectiveRebiu 23:26, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Homosexuality is bad because it tries to revert us back to our neanderthal days. Surely, at one point, our long-lost predecessors fornicated through the backdoor, but, through the help of God, humans have evolved di-geneous sexual organs that, now, we're supposed to use to recreate and populate. If you're accepting the use of the vestigial sexual organs, you're accepting a trip back to pre-socialized humanity. JohnPaulStevens


That's a pretty bogus argument. Humans have sex for a lot of reasons, but mostly because it's an animal desire, much like eating or sleeping. Eating and sleeping are something Neanderthals did, but does that mean to do it as a human is to "revert us back to our neanderthal days"? To pretend that are to have sex out of a dutiful desire to make more babies is absurd. Nature has ensured animals have a desire to fornicate; procreation as a result is happenstance. Even in humans to an extent it still is, but due to our intellectualism (a gift from God, heh) we continue to fornicate but often eliminate the procreation aspect from the act. Sinful or not, we have sex because our bodies cause us to want to do so. Homosexual sex -- which doesn't even necessarily involve anal sex (even between two men) -- is, like most forms of sex, a release of sexual urges. Surely, other parts of the human condition come into it, such as love or lust, but at its root it is merely an natural animal desire that we act on accordingly. To try to pretend that we as humans are beyond our basic animal urges is very arrogant. Get back to me when we don't eat, sleep, die, or breathe oxygen. --Pistolero 01:12, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Humans (homo sapiens) have not evolved from neanderthals; recent DNA studies can find no evidence that they ever interbred at all at the time of their simultaneous existence as distinct species. Also, surely heterosexual intercourse is a far more basic and primal urge (purely for breeding) than same-sex relationships, which demand more developed understanding. In fact, only more evolved and complex vertebrate species, such as penguins, dolphins and primates, tend to be naturally bisexual.

I think we agree here: More complex species have more than one gender, while simpler ones do not. Therefore, the homosexual urges, like the urge to kill or steal, are primitive and should be ignored to the most of our socialized ability. While we may not know exactly why that urge is there ("demands more understanding"), I think empirical comparison to similar temptations should be sufficient to conclude that it is not the sort of thing our breed of humanity should encourage. JohnPaulStevens

I think we disagree entirely. Why should any human have to suppress a natural urge or "temptation" when it is a private and individual matter that affects, neither for good nor ill, any other person outside of the relationship. Whilst I recognise that the mentally ill may be subject to equally potent yet harmful urges (that of course should be tackled), such inconsequential instincts as hetero- or homosexual intercourse can only be damaging to a person if forcefully repressed. There is no rational reason for homosexuality to be thought of as "wrong" unless one considers, as some no doubt do, that any practice or belief outside that of the "normal" majority should be squashed and stigmatised as "deviant" or "sinful". It should also be noted that homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is not exclusively about intercourse. At the purest level, we fall in love with a person, not their gender, and what can be more sincere than embracing that?

I think you've both strayed off-topic. Nobody has yet offered a reason for why people truly dislike homosexuality. And I doubt "because the Bible says so" is a valid reason; The Bible says not to wear clothes made out of two materials, not to eat shellfish, etc. --Hojimachongtalk 17:26, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

To compare homosexuality with killing and stealing is ludicrous. I would be concerned for any person's sanity if they considered killing or stealing to be "natural urges" to be overcome when these are sins in the true respect, regardless of any scripture: that is, blatantly damaging to society and to fellow man. I have no idea why people truly dislike homosexuality. Anyone? Antonym

Homosexuality is the result of a conscious choice to violate true and ethical principles of the Bible. Can you imagine a man having sex another man? It is outrageously wrong and ludicrous. Juv2thes 17:39, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
You sort of contradict yourself there; You say it is a concious choice, yet you then say that nobody who is truly "straight" could ever even consider having homosexual relations. So therefore, if someone makes the "choice" (though homosexuality is not a choice, I'll make my biases known) to have homosexual relations, then they can clearly not be straight. That is your logic. --Hojimachongtalk 18:48, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

User:Suricou said "Isn't it clear? Its the 'Eww' factor. A lot of people just dont like it, and find just the thought of two men having sex to be unsettling. Its just a cultural thing - a combination of inherited views, and an instinctive rejection of anything that differs from the normal idealised practices."

I think that's pretty much it, in fact the the 'Eww' factor was probably the reason the writers of the Bible condemned it in the first place.

MiddleMan

Consider a remote island population that have never heard of the Bible and have never thought to dream up a god. A man falls in love with a man, and a woman falls in love with a woman (let us not neglect lesbians). Still wrong if it is not a conscious "choice" of violating ancient "principles"? I can imagine a man having sex with another man. It doesn't bother me. If both are happy to enjoy each other's company, then who am I to dictate their bedroom code? I think that kind of arrogance would be a greater violation. Antonym

The Bible tells us that homosexuality is contrary to the correct relationship of a man and a woman. It is a blasphemous act against God to be improperly penetrating the anus with a pe nis. Juv2thes 17:50, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Your preoccupation with anal penetration is startling. It is a childish and superficial view of same-sex relationships. Not all gays have penetrative sex and not all gays are men. Again, consider societies that have never had access to a Bible or your God. How does God judge them?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Antonym (talk)

Short answer: it isn't "bad" at all.
My guess is we'll have described the genetic mechanisms behind same-sex attraction within the next 10-15 years. That should hopefully put an end to most of the silliness about people "choosing" to be gay. You can't choose to be attracted to someone - you either are or you aren't.
Why does it attract such vilification from certain quarters? I think mostly because it feels good to rail against things - there's that bracing rush of indignant moral outrage, followed by the warm, comforting glow of self-righteousness. Smack for the soul, basically, and just as addictive. Getting high together probably serves to reinforce tribal identities, too, and we've got a fair few rage junkies here mainlining the fury for all its worth.
I don't think people are that fussy about where they get their fix from, either. It simply has to be socially acceptable within their peer group. And to anticipate at least two objections: yes, this tendency applies right across the political spectrum, and yes, I'm sure I've indulged on occasion as well.
--Robledo 19:37, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

I sure hate haters. What an irony. I simply can't stand people who say homosexuality is an illnes. For god sakes, we live in the 21th century! The bible doesn't state that we should discriminate and persecute homosexual people! You claim to follow God's will. God would never had aprobed such hate in humanity. What bothers conservative about homosexuals? They do no wrong. They just live their lifes the way they enjoy it. Its non of your bussnis!!!!! They do no wrong to humanity! tell what do they do wrong? if some one can tell me why, I will get down on my knees and kiss Bush's shoes. Ciruela

Why is the murder of innocent children so bad?--jp 12:20, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Because in that case innocent people get hurt, but in a homosexual relationship with mutual consent no one gets hurt.

That's the difference between something being universally wrong or something being wrong in the eyes of an ideology. MiddleMan

Is hurting other people really universally wrong? or is it just your ideology? Jaques 00:37, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

I fail to see how the murder of innocent children is in any way connected with homosexuality. Care to clarify that?Prof0705 13:42, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Why ask why, everything evil is bad. I am against homosexuality, I am not against the person who leads the lifestyle. I am against the promotion and education of our youth to homosexuality. This is just a fad and like all fads, glorifing homosexuality will pass. The promoters have no reason to hide in the closet anymore. They will not rest until it is a protected civil right, equal as heterosexuals. Push push push of the movement has its limits and it is starting to back fire. Front and center in the culture will be its downfall. You will be called a racist for taking a stand against homosexuality. I say, the racists are the intolerant homosexuals who can give a damn about how others feel, only themselves, only their agenda.--jp 21:46, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

1954

Why ask why, everything evil is bad. I am against (mixing of the races). I am not against the person who leads the lifestyle. I am against the promotion and education of our youth to (civil rights). This is just a fad and like all fads, glorifying (tolerance) will pass. The promoters have no reason to hide in the closet anymore. They will not rest until it is a protected civil right, as equal as (white people). Push, push push of the movement has its limits and is starting to backfire. Front and center in the culture will be its downfall. You will be called a racist for taking a stand against (interracial marriage). I say, the racists are the intolerant (blacks) who can give a damn about how others feel, only themselves, only their agenda.

You my friend are wrong. People deserve better then bigots like you. There are objective standards by which we can judge what is right and wrong and trust me, pandering to bigots like you ain't one of them. It would fall under appeasement. -Sam

Contents

Homosexuality is bad for society

I think homosexuality is bad because you cannot make children through homosexual relationships. Homosexuality serves no actual purpose for the betterment of society. The only thing that homosexual relationships can do is spread more diseases. Yes, I know that heterosexual relationships can cause diseases. I also feel that it is wrong for heterosexuals to have sex if they are not trying to reproduce.

The idea that a relationship is only valid if children are being made is absurd. What if a heterosexual couple were to be celibate; would they be in sin? Or if one member of the couple is sterile, if they have sex in that case, are they in sin? They would know it would be impossible to reproduce, after all. Also, it is unfair to say homosexual relationships spread more diseases; it would be more accurate to say sexual promiscuity does -- but this is true for both homosexuals.

Yes, I know you will say something like it feels good though. But people who smoke pot and do other drugs also think that it is fine to do so because it makes them feel good. Are you suggesting that society should accept people who do drugs? People should only have sex for one purpose and that is to reproduce.--AdrianP 22:10, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

And yet we have large corporations exploiting the middle class, causing 13% of the population of the United States of America to live below the poverty line. That's 39 million people. Say what you want, but that cannot be good for society. The measures being taken by these companies is active detraction. Homosexuals aren't actively detracting from society; it's a social taboo, the "ick" factor, that makes people think that there's something wrong with them. And now, with artificial insemination, they can create children. The miracles of science, eh? --Hojimachongtalk 23:57, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
actully poverty is good for reproduction since poor people have more children than rich people. Oh, artifical insemination usually creates children who will never see their father. Jaques 00:39, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
That may be true, but that wasn't relevant to the point I was trying to make. I was saying that living in poverty is a terrible thing which nobody should have to go through, regardless of how many children they have; that idea sounds Darwinian, Jaques. --Hojimachongtalk 19:17, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
I personally think society should accept people who do drugs, so long as these people aren't detrimental to society overall. Most people reject drug use because it's a taboo. Certainly, some drugs are more dangerous and I would advise anyone to keep away from them, but marijuana in particular is very harmless. Recent research is even showing it to have beneficial effects, and theories such as it causing schizophrenia or being a gateway drug are being constantly disproved. Like alcohol, other drugs can be abused, and have to be used responsibly, yet alcohol consumption is legal and rarely considered as taboo. People who drink alcohol regularly and in moderation continue to be productive members of society. (Overall, alcohol is a far more dangerous drug than marijuana. It is practically impossible to overdose on marijuana, but it's very possible to drink yourself to death with alcohol.) There is nothing intrinsically wrong with doing something for the purpose of pleasure. Maybe sex for a purpose other than reproduction is wrong from a religious/moral standpoint, but certainly not from a basic logical one. --Pistolero 01:12, 20 May 2007 (EDT)


Surely it is better for society to not suppress homosexuals. If homosexuals continue to be discriminated against and denied equal rights then there will be a reasonable portion of people (ie homosexuals) who will be disillusioned and less likely to contribute to society in other ways. If they are granted rights and recognised as being just as human as everyone else (which they are) then they will be happier and therefore greater contributers to society. Bolly Ottihw 21:28, 14 May 2007

They are already as human as everyone else. Shouldn't they be grateful that they are no longer imprisoned in the USA? Be a homosexual in the Middle East, they will put you to death. Homosexuality is not, and should never be, a protected civil right. Enjoy your lifestyle, don't tread on the laws.--jp 00:04, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
Yes in the middle east they would be. All that proves is that Sharia law is harsher and more unfair than the US law. It does not mean they should be greatful that they are no longer imprisoned, ignoring the fact that they do not have the same rights as married couples. If god existed and he really was worthy of the name god, then he wouldn't give a damn what sex people in a relationship are as long as they truly love each other. Homosexuality is not against the law in any western country, nor should it ever be. Bolly Ottihw 19:11, 16 May 2007

Homosexuality is simply a sin. We should not try to understand His motives for telling us not to be homosexual. Rather we should accept that homosexuality is an abomination or suffer for it. Truthis power 13:36, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Jpatt: It should not be a protected civil right, it should be a non-issue, just like heterosexual marriage. The government should not be concerned with who you are attracted to.
GodIsTruth: If God had told you to kill babies, would you do it without questioning the reasoning? --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 16:10, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

The truth of the matter is that those gay dudes are performing an act that is a scientific impossibility. In terms of common sense, it's illogical to be homosexual for the simple matter of the whole man-women thing. In a purely scientific sense our only purpose is to expand ourselves as a species. To give birth and die. Now really, can you propigate withing a homosexual enviroment? No. Secondly, there is no cause for such an irrational desire. Their is NOTHING genetic about and there is certainly nothing psychological to create such a desire. Indeed, it's meerly a confusion that enters the subconscience because of self perpetuated acts homosexuality. For my final say, do not call this crap marriage. If you want the equal rights of a married couple, fine. I will gladly give you those rights. But don't you dare say that your relationship is marriage because no other culture has ever defined marriage as a bond between a man and a man. Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Common sense people. Dfairlyxed13

Actually, be definition, being scientifically impossible would mean that it could not happen. Homosexuality exists, therefore it is not scientifically impossible. The degree as to how genetics influences homosexual behaviour is still unknown. Studies have gone both ways, so no true causal pattern can be determined. As for the psychological component, the true workings of the human subconcious is not fully understood as of yet. Finally, you are incorrect in that no form of marriage involving same sex couples have ever been acknowledged. The ancient Chinese of Fuijan province routinely engaged in homosexual marriage. The same is true of various Native American tribes. A male warrior could marry a berdache, which is a male that takes on the roles and positions of a female. This was considered to be a valid marriage. Among the Azande of the African Congo, older men would marry younger men. Likewise, the Pokomo of SE Africa recognized female-female marriage. There have been many instances of homosexual marriage in non-Christian cultures.Shadvhi 14:15, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Shadvhi, however i also say that marriage is just a word, just a simple title given to people by their respective governments who have gone through the formalities of signing papers and paying for them. Dont try to say that marriage requires love and trust and all that because there are millions of married couples who dont even live with each other, let alone love each other. Also i would like to point out that homosexuality was not always a taboo. In ancient Greece it was not uncommon for men to be gay and not only were they gay, but it was accepted. If you even entertain the thought that these greeks couldn't have come up with anything important then you are sadly mistaken. Regarding the "homosexuality is bad cuz you cant make babies with it" notion, i guess that means that condoms should be repressed too, because you cant make babies if you wear one of those, same thing with birth control pills, etc.Tomlee

Have heterosexuals ever thought of the advantages of having gays in society? For straight females, gay males allow them to have deep friendships with males without the “Harry Met Sally” tension that they have to sleep together. Females can learn how to have intimate emotional relationships with gay males as friends without worrying about the guy making a pass or god forbid rape when left in their presence. Wives are never jealous of their husband’s lesbian friends and husbands with their wives’ gay ones. This can be healthy for females and visa versa with straight males with lesbians. Learning how to bond with the opposite sex without question of sex would be a positive developmental step for heterosexual relationships. Our society is so hung up on by sexual act of homosexuals that we do not realize gays and lesbians can offer their perspective to teach us their own lessons about emotional love and relationship.

C'mon, guys! The basic reason it is so bad is that two whole cities, namely Sosome and Gomorrah, were burned to the ground by God wit fire and brimstone for it. Isn't that enough for you?! DebateKid 13:54, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

I think you meant "Sodom," not "Sosome." But the reason that homosexuality is bad is that it discourages the modern family, by making an alternative "lifestyle" acceptable.-Phoenix 13:56, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

Considering that divorce rates are through the roof and domestic violence still runs rampant (by straight people), I don't see how homosexuality wrecks the family any more. ChrisQ 19:30, 5 March 2008 (EST)

Homosexuality cannot be wholly evil, at least not in terms of its psychosexual genesis, for one of the sons of the brilliant conservative thinker Phyllis Schlafly is gay.-Hillary


I will be rideculed endlessly but I will say it anyways. What difference is there between homosexuality, pedophila, and beastiality. All are for the percieved "pleasure" of the individual yet none are natural. Natural human behavior mandates that for procreation there must be one man and one woman. The desires to have sex with a person of the same sex/child/animal are all disgusting excuses to artificially stimulate pleasure. Soon enough the pedophiles will come foward and demand that sex with children is alright. They might even dance in the streets and protest like the gays do. What will you do then? Accept that as natural as well? How far will our society push the perverted envelope. Sex between anything besides a man and a woman has no biological benifits so cannot therefor be a natural code in our genes or else the human race would not exist. It must therefor be an anomaly of the genetic code or a choice. I prefer the latter. I know a gay man, and I would not burn him at the stake, but I do not respect his choice of lifestyle. If I could I would change it (do not jump on my back about it is his choice, any choice of any human affects society as a whole). To me homosexuality is a disgusting, unnatural and despicable behavior that is a perverse as screwing a horse. --CRD 00:33, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

A horse is physically incapable of giving consent, and a child does not have the mental capability to consent to sex. Two adult males, on the other hand, know full well what they are doing, and they aren't hurting anybody by doing it. --ηοξιμαχονγθαλκ 15:05, 19 July 2007 (EDT)


dude, i dont really care. i for one love women. if some dude wants to make out or whatever with another dude....whatever, more chicks for me!. i dont have to look at it. ill just go do something more interesting. if 2 chicks want to get down, thatst cool too. id rather look at that, or be involved somehow.hey bonus: niether parties can accidentally get pregnant! i dont really care what you do with your genitalia, stick them in running lawnmowers for all i care. you wanna mastur..i mean pleasure yourself to pictures of livestock before playing Halo? then you will see me glad to know that you cant catch diseases from cybersex (no, viruses hidden in your porn collection dont count) You see, what someone does with thier genitals only seems to havea a small influence on thier ability to function...unless your a porn star, or priest..but i digress. you see,once you remove this from silly mythology, there isnt really much to talk about.

I don't think we need to persecute any homosexuals, or treat them as if they are heathens. They are people, who, until modern science proves that there is a homosexual gene, have made a choice. So as conservatives we need to respect them as individuals regardless of whether or not we support their decision. I good portion of these individuals turn to homosexuality after many years of being treated poorly by "normal" society in general, so ridiculing homosexuals would indirectly promote homosexuality. They have talents and skills like the rest of us, so if we treat them the same as everyone else, then we are doing our part of promoting heterosexuality, and also helping them out, because honestly i believe that homosexuals are in a state of lustful desires, not realizing what they really want in life. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hillstar22.

I have read each and every single post about homosexuality on this site and I am so disgusted, and disheartened that people in this country are truly that ignorant, close minded, and absurd. Who cares how a person goes about their daily lives, what harm are they causing? One's sexual preference is nobody's business except the people whom are involved. I have yet to hear a single reason that is valid for excluding Americans or any human from their civil rights. The God card is the only EXCUSE I have heard of, and it is PATHETIC! I spent many going to church, and the ONE thing that was burned into my brain was that God's love is UNCONDITIONAL. The Bible and God are unacceptable reasons to pass judgment on a person (I'm pretty sure the bible says that God alone is the one to pass judgment). And the excuse that it is unnatural? ... Come on... do you wear glasses, or drive a car? I hopefully won't need to further explain myself on that issue. I don't know if people just don't want to remember or are just in denial, but countless evil things have been done in this country in the name of GOD. How can one justify negative thoughts and condescending feelings of a person because the bible "said so". Have people really lost the ability to think for themselves? THE GOD CARD IS JUST A MASK OF FEAR AND PREJUDICE. I can no longer write on this issue because my blood is boiling, so I will leave with a quote

"If people can be educated to see the lowly side of their own natures, it may be hoped that they will also learn to understand and to love their fellow men better. A little less hypocrisy and a little more tolerance towards oneself can only have good results in respect for our neighbor;for we are all too prone to transfer to our fellows the injustice and violence we inflict upon our own natures."

- Carl Jung

A Concise Refutation

From what I've seen so far here, the anti-gay argument basically boils down to two elements:

1) The Bible Says It's A Sin. Fair enough; don't be gay then. But recognise that it's a personal religious vow, not a crime against humanity. Instead of castigating and alienating people, why not just leave the judgements up to God?

2) It's Harming Society. Well, no. There's a persistent belief that gays and lesbians are somehow trying to 'convert' people, which is thoroughly unsubstantiated. I've never been approached on the street by a pamphlet-bearing biker-boy, or been randomly invited to Gay Camp. As far as I'm aware, there are no derogatory terms for heterosexuals like myself. And the claim that gay couples are somehow depriving society by not breeding is simply ridiculous, particularly coming from the same sector that vilifies Social Security dependents as 'welfare queens'.

Just admit it: as so many have said before, it's the 'ewww' factor. Then grow up. Underscoreb 21:48, 12 November 2007 (EST)

Ohh Thank God someone can present a well articulated argument that actually makes sense rather posting what they heard from a friend at work or in the mens bathroom at the local watering hole. It is so refreshing to see some original thought on these pages, and Underscoreb you should be noted for well thought out posts that defy refute. I just hope that they don't get edited into oblivion. [roulettedares 4 February 2008 22:00]

Cheers. :D Underscoreb 23:03, 10 February 2008 (EST)

And now for an entirely different slant

It has been commonly believed that sexual repression increases aggression. Boxers are told that "women make weak legs". Many warrior cults practiced abstention before battle. And frankly, any warlord that allowed his warriors to rape BEFORE winning the battle usually lost.

Successful warlords instituted the practice of sexual repression to add that special edge to win. However, you cannot sexually repress homosexual males by keeping women from them. Thus we find that homosexual repression of male warriors had a logical place in military discipline. Which may also explain why female homosexuals weren't equally persecuted.

Do non-militaristic societies exhibit less sexual repression of homosexuality?

--Jetgraphics 15:26, 14 November 2007 (EST)

I don't know about that, Jet - the Spartans were considered some of the greatest warriors in classical Greece, but they placed a huge emphasis on the importance of same-sex relationships. Young warriors were in essence barred from even seeing their wives for up to ten years of military service, and were instead encouraged to cultivate relationships with other warriors. Apparently the idea was that one would fight that much harder alongside a lover.

Underscoreb 15:18, 15 November 2007 (EST)

Response

The very title of this "debate" slants the dialogue in a negative direction. Why in the world would it be necessary to defend or justify something that is part of nature, something people (and other species) are born to? The answer to that is threefold: a). Some social conservatives use the bible to justify discrimination and intolerance against gay people. This is the case even though we did not all agree to be ruled by the bible, that the bible says different things about homosexuality (the Eunuchs shal inherit the earth), and that much of what is in the bible doesn't fit in a modern world (hence we don't smite people for mixing fibres in their garments, burn a sacrificial bull at the altar, condone slavery, or stone people for the 'abomination' of eating shellfish). b) Some social conservatives use twisted science to condemn gay and lesbian people, even forgetting that women are included, and looking only at so-called 'research', such as the discredited ex-gay ministry, which reinforces their belief systems. c). Those same social conservatives actually CAUSE homosexuality to be a critique of 'traditional values' (although there is NOTHING non-traditional about homosexuality in and of itself-- it's been around since before tradition!) by pushing homosexuality into the shadows by using the bible and twisted science to advocate for discrimination and intolerance against gay and lesbian people. There is nothing new about wanting to abridge the rights of people we are not comfortable with, and there's a self-reinforcing dynamic of systematic mistreatment of people who are different, leading to defensive behavior, leading to stereotypes, which are used to justify further mistreatment. There is also nothing new about blaming a group of people we are uncomfortable with for all society's ills. It's reassuring and provides a simple answer-- even if it's the wrong answer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alexxjm (talk)

Look to Deviance theory

I think this theory explains it pretty well. What a society considers deviant (the yuck factor) is a reversed reflection of what they value. The more we value something, the more we abhor and hold prejudice against its opposite and we value heterosexual relationships, marriage, etc. quite highly. By extension, the theory would predict that groups of people who do not hold marriage in high esteem would be more accepting of gays.

While I'm throwing around sociological theories, might as well throw in structural functionalism, which might suggest that a dislike and shaming of homosexuality forces people to pursue heterosexual relationships, thusly ensuring high birth rates. So it could be argued that, right or not, prejudice against homosexuality furthers evolutionary ends. Even if sexual orientation were black and white, and ascribed from birth, which the scientific evidence tends NOT to support by the way, then some people who would otherwise be openly homosexual would still further social ends by 'keeping up appearances'. Antonrojo 08:40, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

It's not. NRupert 14:27, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Why_is_homosexuality_so_bad%3F"
Personal tools