Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Sienisoturi wrote:
It is a "disorder" in the sense that it is not the majority state of existance, however it is very far from a medical disorder.

No, that's not what a disorder is. Calling something a "disorder" means that something is bad, not just that it is not standard. And something being fairly rare does not mean that it is a problem that needs to be solved.

I think it is as normal as having a depresson, somehow common but something that needs to be cured.

And this is another laughably wrong analogy. Depression severely hurts quality of life, and very few, if any, depressed people want to be that way or would want to go back if they were cured. Homosexuality, on the other hand, causes no problems and there's no reason to believe that someone who was "cured" of it would indisputably be happier. The only problems gay people suffer from as a result of their sexual preferences are those imposed on them by bigots. You're doing the equivalent of arguing that we should "cure" black people because it sucks to be discriminated against by racists.

Anyhow your favourite colour does not prevent you having children or cause any other problems.

Again with this ridiculous assertion that not having children is automatically a problem, not just a personal choice to be made by each individual person.

Also curing in my mind is very loving. Isn't it a sign that if you are cured the curer likes you.

No, because the person being "cured" doesn't want to be cured. That makes your "cure" nothing more than imposing your own beliefs on someone against their will.

 Peregrine wrote:
Not really. You could duplicate most of the contract aspects of marriage with private contracts, but then you have the chaos of millions of slightly different marriage contracts to deal with. The only people who win in that situation are the lawyers.

I'd actually be thoroughly in favor of such an a la carte system, but you wouldn't even have to do that. You could always repackage the basics under another name if you really wanted to, and leave the term and all its baggage to the church.

I'd be interested in seeing the results, frankly. I bet a lot of steam would get lost.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sienisoturi wrote:
It is a "disorder" in the sense that it is not the majority state of existance, however it is very far from a medical disorder.

No, that's not what a disorder is. Calling something a "disorder" means that something is bad, not just that it is not standard. And something being fairly rare does not mean that it is a problem that needs to be solved.

He messed up the quotes there - that was actually me saying that. I put disorder in quotation marks as I was using it to mean "not the normal". I was attempting to put a generous spin on the use of the word disorder to describe homosexuality.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sienisoturi wrote:
This a bit of a stramanshis argument (see the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man), because organisations who's main principles include rasism should be rather banned.

It really isn't, given the past history of racism and segregation in the US.

Don't you think that referring to race when we are talking about homosexuality is a strawman.

Considering both are similar cases concerning civil rights and social prejudices, I'd say that's nowhere near a strawman. Sure, they may have been a few differences in how they were treated (we enslaved blacks, but just killed or jailed gays), but how they're being or were deprived of rights for entirely arbitrary reasons is exactly the same.

Oh, well I would say it is a mental disorder like depression.

Then you would be a bigot.

I am not familiar with the word bigot but to my knowlege it is amock name for conservatives, and I do not think that mocking brings this discussion forward at all.

In the context you've given, 'bigot' isn't so much a term meant for patronizing as it would be a very well deserved categorization.

The reason I believe it is a disease is that that it prevents the natural chance of getting a child.

So do a lot of other things. Sex without the (significant) possibility of having a (non-aborted) child is awesome, and not limited to gay people.

True but the big differencre here is that straight people have the chance and will probably still at some point have children.

Gay people have a chance of having children. Most of them have all the working parts. In fact, as the technology involved in fertilization improves and becomes cheaper, the amount of gay couples having children is only going to get cheaper.

Is it a disease if a person can't eat oraly but has to be fed to the vein?

Do you really not see any difference between having kids, something that is completely optional, and being able to meet basic requirements for continued life? Or do you consider it a disease if someone decides they don't want kids, or can't find anyone willing to have kids with them?

The reason that I see people not having children as a disease is that no specie (except some medusas) can survive without reproduction. I do konsider the choice of not having children as a similie to a disease becasue all healthy humans have the desire to make children. Although this can also be thought as cheating nature which in this case is irresponsible. For the people who have no chance to get children becasue they have no partner I call that unluckines.

I consider myself to be reasonably healthy and I don't have a desire to make children. I'm not gay either.

And you actually view not having children as being 'irresponsible to nature?' What the hell does that even mean?

And for a final point where have you gotten the idea that religious people are bad or discriminatory.

Probably from the vast amounts of religiously-motivated discrimination in the US.

I think it is sad if some people use religion as a tool of violence but that does not mean that all religious people are bad.

But that doesn't change the fact that most of the discrimination against homosexuals comes from people brandishing religious texts.

Answers are underlined

Learn to forum code.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

 Sienisoturi wrote:
I think homosexuality should be tried to be cured by scientisific methods, not by some pseudo science.

You already crossed into pseudo science whenever you started to talk about "curing" homosexuality...

We are doing good on our Bingo since midnight though...

I do not think that curing homosexuality is pseudo science if it is done according to the ethics of doctors.

What the feth does that even mean?

Although I know that at the moment there are not any serious ways to cure it, but I think they should research for that cure. For the thing that homosexuality is a disease I already explained.

And your reasoning and ignorance has proven to be the only thing in need of proper treatment.

You know what, I think I'd better leave this thread before I give my real thoughts on the subject and earn myself a ban.

Sienisoturi, let's just leave it at this: you're the equivalent of the racists who spend vast amounts of time explaining all their elaborate "scientific theories" about how black people aren't really bad or anything, they're just "different" and should be kept in their own separate world away from all the white people. You should be ashamed of your appalling prejudice and laughably bad "theories", and hopefully the response you've encountered here will motivate you to think long and hard about how wrong you are and become a better person. Because if you don't, you really are a horrible person. And that is the very polite version of my opinion of you right now.

 Peregrine wrote:
You know what, I think I'd better leave this thread before I give my real thoughts on the subject and earn myself a ban.

Sienisoturi, let's just leave it at this: you're the equivalent of the racists who spend vast amounts of time explaining all their elaborate "scientific theories" about how black people aren't really bad or anything, they're just "different" and should be kept in their own separate world away from all the white people. You should be ashamed of your appalling prejudice and laughably bad "theories", and hopefully the response you've encountered here will motivate you to think long and hard about how wrong you are and become a better person. Because if you don't, you really are a horrible person.

Sounds quite scientific.

Please refer to my three reasons on page three and ignore this.

You are wrong because you have as much support for your theory as flat-earth theorists and the crazy guy on the corner screaming about mind control in the chemtrails. And you express it about as well. 'I know no one useful thinks it's a disease anymore, but I do because potato' isn't a good argument

The reason I believe it is a disease is that that it prevents the natural chance of getting a child.

So do a lot of other things. Sex without the (significant) possibility of having a (non-aborted) child is awesome, and not limited to gay people.

True but the big differencre here is that straight people have the chance and will probably still at some point have children.

Gay people have a chance of having children. Most of them have all the working parts. In fact, as the technology involved in fertilization improves and becomes cheaper, the amount of gay couples having children is only going to get cheaper.

I have also read about the chance that gays might have the ability to have children. In the case that that comes true there should be no problem anymore.

 Sienisoturi wrote:


I have also read about the chance that gays might have the ability to have children. In the case that that comes true there should be no problem anymore.

There is nothing wrong about not having children because we are humans.

 Sienisoturi wrote:
Although if we leave all this homosexuality thing I would like to hear your opinion on is it a disease if a person can't have children?

No, not being able to have children is not a disease. As has been mentioned there are many diffrent reasons people don't have children; through choice, through an actual disease causing infertility (or other reproductive issues), through not having a partner, or ant number of other different reasons.

Besides which, and it has already been mentioned, homosexual people can and do have children. There is absolutely nothing biological stopping most homosexual people having children (other than if they have an existing fertility issue that is independent of their sexuality).

Well, you can rest easy then, since homosexuals having working sexual organs have existed since the dawn of humanity, and artificially assisted conception has existed for decades.

Of course, it shouldn't be such a leap in logic to understand that the goo of a homosexual man contains just as much potency as that of any other.

A man goes to uni, studies law, and spearheads a groundbreaking case to protect freedom of speech. He meets a woman while at uni, who is studying medicine. She goes on to become a successful general surgeon. They choose not to have kids, despite the fact they get fertility testing and are perfectly capable. Did they do wrong by your books? Are you mandating breeding for all?

 Sienisoturi wrote:
I have also read about the chance that gays might have the ability to have children. In the case that that comes true there should be no problem anymore.

A gay couple I went to the wedding of are now expecting a baby. So does this mean that homosexuality isn't a disease now? And that they can get "married"?

This thread has gone quite out of hand. I will just put my reasons here to make it clear.

Reason one. Because western nations have poor population growth. I do believe that homosexuals might be a problem becasue of the decrease in the population growth they provide.

Reason two. Gays should have the right to non religious marriage but no private oraganisation should be forced to do gay marriages.

Reason three. In my opinion the ability of not having children is a disease. If science makes a way to allow gays to have childeren I believe that in that case only reason two should stay in effect. This also in my mind is the so called cure for homosexuality which would mean that it is a cured disease.

Also for other people not having children. I believe it should be peoples responsibilty to keep the human species excisting with reproduction.

PS for reason two I mean the ability to have children "inside gay couple".

Sienisoduri, I hate to get into this kind of internet stupidity, but for the record, it could be said that a reduced birthrate would be a good thing for humanity, due to overcrowding and diminishing resources. Overpopulation is becoming a problem in the modern world, there's no denying that.

Just to put another hole in your flimsy raft of an argument.

 Sienisoturi wrote:
This thread has gone quite out of hand. I will just put my reasons here to make it clear.

Reason one. Because western nations have poor population growth. I do believe that homosexuals might be a problem becasue of the decrease in the population growth they provide.

Reason two. Gays should have the right to non religious marriage but no private oraganisation should be forced to do gay marriages.

Reason three. In my opinion the ability of not having children is a disease. If science makes a way to allow gays to have childeren I believe that in that case only reason two should stay in effect.

1. There is 7 billion of us. There are orphanages. We have no natural enemy. Recources are not infinate.

2. I agree

3. Other species evolve through natural evolution. Humans evolve though natural evolution and cultural evolution. The amount how many humans there are is irrelevant.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Sienisoturi wrote:
Although if we leave all this homosexuality thing I would like to hear your opinion on is it a disease if a person can't have children?

No, not being able to have children is not a disease. As has been mentioned there are many diffrent reasons people don't have children; through choice, through an actual disease causing infertility (or other reproductive issues), through not having a partner, or ant number of other different reasons.

Besides which, and it has already been mentioned, homosexual people can and do have children. There is absolutely nothing biological stopping most homosexual people having children (other than if they have an existing fertility issue that is independent of their sexuality).

I do respect your word as a medical expert but don't you think infertility is similar to homosexuality? Other is mental other is physical.

 illuknisaa wrote:

 Sienisoturi wrote:

Reason two. Gays should have the right to non religious marriage but no private oraganisation should be forced to do gay marriages.

2. I agree

An organisation taking part in the provision of an official state service should abide by the laws of the state, or lose the ability to provide that service.

 Sienisoturi wrote:
This thread has gone quite out of hand. I will just put my reasons here to make it clear.

Reason one. Because western nations have poor population growth. I do believe that homosexuals might be a problem becasue of the decrease in the population growth they provide.

Homosexuals account for 3% of the population. If a lack of population growth is a problem in our society, then I seriously doubt that 3% of the people are responsible for a supposedly general trend.

Reason two. Gays should have the right to non religious marriage but no private oraganisation should be forced to do gay marriages.

Likewise, no private organization should be forced to provide marriages to black people.

Reason three. In my opinion the ability of not having children is a disease.

And by the very definition of what the word 'disease' is, you are extremely patently and adamantly wrong.

What's more, why does the entire value of what makes a person amount down to their ability, desire and circumstance to have children? Are women who opt to not have children in favour of focusing on their careers similarly diseased?

 Dark Apostle 666 wrote:
Sienisoduri, I hate to get into this kind of internet stupidity, but for the record, it could be said that a reduced birthrate would be a good thing for humanity, due to overcrowding and diminishing resources. Overpopulation is becoming a problem in the modern world, there's no denying that.

Just to put another hole in your flimsy raft of an argument.

Yes I agree with that there are globaly enough people but the problem is that western nations start to have negative population growth.

 Sienisoturi wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Sienisoturi wrote:
Although if we leave all this homosexuality thing I would like to hear your opinion on is it a disease if a person can't have children?

No, not being able to have children is not a disease. As has been mentioned there are many diffrent reasons people don't have children; through choice, through an actual disease causing infertility (or other reproductive issues), through not having a partner, or ant number of other different reasons.

Besides which, and it has already been mentioned, homosexual people can and do have children. There is absolutely nothing biological stopping most homosexual people having children (other than if they have an existing fertility issue that is independent of their sexuality).

I do respect your word as a medical expert but don't you think infertility is similar to homosexuality? Other is mental other is physical.

Homosexuality is both physical and mental. But it's not at all similar to infertility. Same plumbing, it all works. Many gays even want to have children.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 illuknisaa wrote:

 Sienisoturi wrote:

Reason two. Gays should have the right to non religious marriage but no private oraganisation should be forced to do gay marriages.

2. I agree

An organisation taking part in the provision of an official state service should abide by the laws of the state, or lose the ability to provide that service.

That is probably true, but wouldn't the best solution be that everybody goes through the non-religious one and those who want a religious ritual can have one.

 Sienisoturi wrote:
I do respect your word as a medical expert but don't you think infertility is similar to homosexuality? Other is mental other is physical.

No, it is not similar. The two issues are completely unrelated.

 Fafnir wrote:

 Sienisoturi wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Sienisoturi wrote:
Although if we leave all this homosexuality thing I would like to hear your opinion on is it a disease if a person can't have children?

No, not being able to have children is not a disease. As has been mentioned there are many diffrent reasons people don't have children; through choice, through an actual disease causing infertility (or other reproductive issues), through not having a partner, or ant number of other different reasons.

Besides which, and it has already been mentioned, homosexual people can and do have children. There is absolutely nothing biological stopping most homosexual people having children (other than if they have an existing fertility issue that is independent of their sexuality).

I do respect your word as a medical expert but don't you think infertility is similar to homosexuality? Other is mental other is physical.

Homosexuality is both physical and mental. But it's not at all similar to infertility. Same plumbing, it all works. Many gays even want to have children.

That I think is quite positive, but there is still the problem that at the moment gays can't have children between themselves.

Never mind, I'm out.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Sienisoturi wrote:
I do respect your word as a medical expert but don't you think infertility is similar to homosexuality? Other is mental other is physical.

No, it is not similar. The two issues are completely unrelated.

But can you agree that both have the effect of not having children.

 Sienisoturi wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Sienisoturi wrote:
I do respect your word as a medical expert but don't you think infertility is similar to homosexuality? Other is mental other is physical.

No, it is not similar. The two issues are completely unrelated.

But can you agree that both have the effect of not having children.

A gay man can go out right now, have sex with a woman, and get her pregnant. He won't enjoy the sex, but he's certainly capable of impregnating her (He can just picture Joseph Gordon Levitt in his head while he does it, I guess).

 Sienisoturi wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Sienisoturi wrote:
I do respect your word as a medical expert but don't you think infertility is similar to homosexuality? Other is mental other is physical.

No, it is not similar. The two issues are completely unrelated.

But can you agree that both have the effect of not having children.

So does the point you refuse to answer, straight couples choosing not to have children because of careers/whatever reason

 Sienisoturi wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Sienisoturi wrote:
I do respect your word as a medical expert but don't you think infertility is similar to homosexuality? Other is mental other is physical.

No, it is not similar. The two issues are completely unrelated.

But can you agree that both have the effect of not having children.

No, because you can have children as a homosexual and some fertility issues can also be treated or bypassed, leading to children.