Quote:
|
Originally Posted by alansmithee
I didn't reference rearing offspring, someone else did. And homosexual COUPLES don't produce offspring, which is what I said.
|
Sure you did: "Usualy animals only form partnerships while rearing kids, which it's biologically impossible for homosexual couples to produce."
Quote:
|
And I don't have to take what your biased sources say seriously either. Currently, homosexuality is not treated as a psychological disorder, but not to long ago it was. It was outside pressure that changed this, not scientific research.
|
The APA and the DSM IV are the mainstream standard for what constitutes a psychological disorder. It was a recognition that homosexuality does not constitute a disorder that resulted in it's being removed fromt the DSM. A disorder must cause harm to the individual, and homosexuality doesn't.
Quote:
|
You could easily draw parallels between homosexuality and many sexual disorders/fetishes. But this isn't done because of a strong gay lobby, not because it's untrue. If exibitionists or NAMBLA had the same type of lobbying efforts that gays do, flashers and pedophiles might not be considered to have sexual disorders either.
|
Nice. Flashers and child molestors actively seek to intrude upon and harm others. The same cannot be said of homosexuals as a group.
Quote:
|
Then the lesbian couple isn't producing offspring, it's the person impregnated and the sperm donor.
|
Would you say the same of a heterosexual couple with an sterile male? Being a parent is about a lot more than biology.
Quote:
|
My inclusion of reproduction has more to do with the marriage issue than anything else. Personally, I don't care what goes on in people's homes.
|
So the purpose of marriage is reproduction? What about CFBC couples, infertile couples, couples past child producing age? Should they not be allowed to marry?
Quote:
|
Male/Male and Female/Female sexual contact and non-platonic relationships are the exclusive domain of homosexuals.
|
You've defined homosexual behavior here, but I fail to see any specific behavior that homosexuals engage in that is not also engaged in by heterosexuals.
I could just as easily say, "Black / White sexual contact and non-platonic relationships are the exclusive domain of miscegenationists." It would be equally true, and equally irrelevant.
Quote:
|
But it's the relationships that come from that attraction that are the outward signs of homosexuality, which is a behavior. Without some form of behavior, you can't determine if someone is homosexual (or hetero, for that matter)
|
Sure you can. Ask a person, "Are you sexually attracted to men, women or both equally," and their answer will allow you to determine their sexual orientation without observing their behavior.
Quote:
|
But if you condemn drug use, you are condemning the people who have attraction toward using drugs, which by your definition makes it bigoted, since the attraction is a "status". And to take it more extreme, condemning serial killers is condeming people with the status of enjoying killing. Again, your definition of bigot to include "status" makes it a nonsense term. If that's the case, everyone is a bigot.
|
But it isn't the status that's being condemed, it's the action: taking drugs or killing people. Notice that you can condem the behavior without knowing the sex of the person engagine in it. With homosexuality it isn't the behavior that's being condemed, it's the sex of the person engaging in the behavior.
Examples.
Walking down the street holding hands with a woman.
Kissing a woman on the lips.
Slow dancing with a woman.
Performing oral sex on a woman.
Marrying a woman.
Are these things acceptable or not? If it is truly the behavior that is at issue, then these things are acceptable or not regardless of the sex of the person doing them.
If however, these are acceptable for men, but not for women, then it is the sex of the person being condemned, not the action itself.
Assume that the woman in the examples is white. Would it be fair to say it's acceptable for a white person to do those things, but not a black person? Of course not. We've rejected the idea that miscegenation is immoral, because it punishes people not for what they are doing, but for who they are.
Quote:
|
I have pointed out behavior that is exclusive to homosexuality, because engaging in it makes you homosexual. And many people find that behavior immoral. Just like many people find alchohol consumption immoral. I don't personally care if people live homosexual lifestyles, but I do care when they want to elevate the behaviors associated with that above other behavior types.
|
No, you have yet to identify a single behavior that is exclusive to homosexuals. You've also failed to define the "homosexual lifestyle". My lifestyle consists of teaching middle school, collecting and reading comic books, eating at Denny's, playing Diablo II obsessively, and regularly having sex with a beautiful young woman. There is nothing, literally, nothing I do that heterosexuals don't also do, unless you attempt to define a behavior by the status of the person engaging in that behavior.