People who think being gay is wrong and/or disgusting, why?

submitted by usehername from self.politics

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

You already know how, but have been brainwashed to deny it and that is why you ask.

No, I'm struggling to understand how.

That is why you ask the disingenuous question "is it supernatural".

No, I'm emphasising that it arises naturally, and so is natural.

But for the record, for others reading this, sexuality exists for the purpose of procreation.

If you're going to exclude gay from the meaning of "sexuality" in a thread about gay sexuality, your going to find your definitions too narrow to participate meaningfully.

The claim that "if nature does it then it is natural" is a pseudo intellectual argument.

Calling it names doesn't refute it. That's what natural means to me. What definition of natural are you using?

It purposefully takes the argument that homosexuality is not natural in a dishonestly literal sense turning it into a strawman argument to return a stupid answer.

Okay. What is the argument that "homosexuality is not natural"?

Mental illness is a real thing.

True, but irrelevant.

But when you have some wires crossed and believe one of your limbs doesn't belong to you, that is not natural.

Body integrity dysphoria is associated with a brain damage to the right parietal lobe. There are other physical symptoms too. Skin conductance response is significantly different above and below the line of desired amputation. So it's not obvious that this is a mental problem and not a symptom of a physical problem.

But in any case, it's not related to homosexuality.

When you have some wires crossed and your sexual desires are triggered by the wrong stimuli that is not natural.

You're defining "not natural" as having a paraphilia?

Before social science was corrupted there were hundreds of years of research from around the world that proved you wrong.

Can you link me to some of this research?

There are lots of fetishes that do not meet these criteria, that does NOT mean they are not fetishes.

That's exactly what it means.

[–]Canbot 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

You desperately want to label homosexuality as natural because you don't have legitimate arguments so you play these grouping games. If you can put it in a box labeled natural you believe it automatically gives it other properties associated with that box, such as "good" and "normal". And your argument for calling it natural is nothing more than "it's natural because my definition of natural includes it." That is absurd, but I don't expect you to acknowledge that.

However, I am curious what you would say to a pedophile who said pedophilia is natural?

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Nope. I'm wondering how you can label it unnatural, because it's obviously natural.

I wasn't implying value judgements like "good" any more than any other sexual orientation is "good".

It's certainly normal.

I've not had a conversation with a pedophile who said pedophilia is natural. I'm not sure how it would go.

[–]Canbot 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I'm not sure how it would go.

Bro, it's literally YOUR response. Not a conversation, just your response. That's probably something you should think about because the bullshit you are using to defend your indefensible position can be used by others to defend theirs. Not just pedophiles. What do you say to murderers who say murder is natural? What do you say to cannibals? All of that exists in nature. If that is all it takes to claim something is "normal" then we are in a lot of trouble.

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Behaviour is unethical when it hurts others.

Murder and pedophilia are evil not because they're unnatural. They're evil because they hurt someone.

There's no continuum between that and homosexuality, or heterosexuality if they're acted on with consent.

[–]Canbot 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

I don't need to label it anything because none of my arguments rely on it being either way. But in the exact same way that a broken arm isn't natural (even though it exists in nature) neither is homosexuality. There is no biological function for it, it exists because a system with a function is broken and exhibits in this way. That is what I call abnormal, dysfunctional, and unnatural. For me it is a descriptor. The problem is that for you it is a category. A grouping. Because the way leftists think is group think. You believe that if you can label something then you have "proven" that the thing you labeled has all the properties of the group you put it in. I realize that is a human nature kind of thing, but humans who overcome that kind of backwards thinking move their politics to the right where things make more sense.

[–]mahavishnunj 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

watching you get owned beyond belief, and still digging yourself into your moron hole was a thing of beauty in this thread.

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

And yet you label it unnatural.

There is no biological function for it, it exists because a system with a function is broken and exhibits in this way.

How do you know that they aren't selected for because they are able to provide support to the community and their families, by having more resources available due to not supporting a family themselves?