4 ms·

>Humanity needs to abandon ... the fallacy that heteronormativity is more correct, rather than merely being more common. There is good reason to suspect that h

by troupe 8y ago

>Humanity needs to abandon ... the fallacy that heteronormativity is more correct, rather than merely being more common. There is good reason to suspect that heterosexual behavior is strongly correlated with the ability of a species to survive. Of course, not all members of a species may see survival as a desired goal.

krapp 8y ago
Heterosexuality and homosexuality are about more than mere reproduction, though. If the arguments against homosexuality were strictly about that, they could also be applied to straight people who marry monogamously, or who choose not to have children at all, since neither a single partner or no partner is optimal for survival. My point is that non-hetero sexuality and non-binary gender should be viewed as simply an uncommon aspect of human biology and identity, which has no moral weight in and of itself. Some people are left-handed, some people have red hair, some people are gay.
- virmundi 8y ago
  Homosexuality brings with a high level of STDs even within a "couple". They also have higher substance abuse issues. https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/substance-use-suds-in-lgbt-populations https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/substance-use-suds-... Also, when you look at the demise of countries, the acceptance of general homosexuality and transgender-ism are correlated. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8BRdwgPChQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8BRdwgPChQ To this end, one could make the argument that homosexual behavior is a public health crisis and should be banned along with non-monogamous heterosexual relationships.
  - krapp 8y ago
    >Homosexuality brings with a high level of STDs even within a "couple". In part, because of efforts by right wing and religious groups to ensure that gay couples cannot receive treatment without risking their personal safety, and to deny homosexuals access to the same medical rights and privileges as heterosexuals. If there were no stigma to homosexuality, and no threat to the funding or reputation of doctors or programs that treat homosexuals, then the spread of STDs amongst that community would be lower. After all, it's not as if AIDS or syphilis knows the sexual preference of the person it infects, and decides not to infect straight people, or to double-infect gays, so the contributing factors here must be external, social and political. One needs to recognize the difference between gay lifestyles (there are more than one) when considering the negative aspects of sexual promiscuity therein, and the existence of homosexuality itself. One can criticize the former without demonizing the latter. Another factor, also related to the need for gay communities to remain isolated in many places, is the fact that there are fewer gay people than straight people, and therefore fewer potential partners, making the likelihood of infection higher. >To this end, one could make the argument that homosexual behavior is a public health crisis and should be banned along with non-monogamous heterosexual relationships. One could make that argument, but it would be an inhumane argument to make, which is why most people would oppose it.
    - virmundi 8y ago
      The gay community is full of people that love sex. They are known to be indiscriminate. They are known to actively eschew condoms. It's part of the mystique. Sure there are subgroups that don't, but they are few in number, especially among the young. Since this behavior is so prevalent, I don't think you can meaningfully separate it from homosexuality in general. To your ideas that funding and all that would be better and provide better outcomes all I have to do is point you to SF. Gays are loved there. No doctor since the 60s would get in trouble or lose prestige because he worked with them. Yet it has a terrible HIV/AIDS issue (http://sfaf.org/hiv-info/statistics/ http://sfaf.org/hiv-info/statistics/). Hell California dropped the federal crime of knowingly having unsafe sex since it was lobbied against by the homosexual community (probably a subset, but that's still a large enough mentality to show the problems). As to AIDS, it really does have a preference (not volitional, but statically). It prefers homosexual men. When you see it in heterosexual populations its either due to homosexual sex and then unprotected heterosexual sex, or due to blood infusion issues (which are largely done now in the West).
- troupe 8y ago
  > Some people are left-handed, some people have red hair, some people are gay. This is fundamentally different. I'm pretty sure if the entire population of a species was left handed or had red hair it would still survive. > since neither a single partner or no partner is optimal for survival. Single partner may be more optimal for survival when offspring don't mature in a matter of weeks, months or even years.

by troupe 8y ago

krapp 8y ago

Heterosexuality and homosexuality are about more than mere reproduction, though. If the arguments against homosexuality were strictly about that, they could also be applied to straight people who marry monogamously, or who choose not to have children at all, since neither a single partner or no partner is optimal for survival. My point is that non-hetero sexuality and non-binary gender should be viewed as simply an uncommon aspect of human biology and identity, which has no moral weight in and of itself. Some people are left-handed, some people have red hair, some people are gay.

virmundi 8y ago
Homosexuality brings with a high level of STDs even within a "couple". They also have higher substance abuse issues. https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/substance-use-suds-in-lgbt-populations https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/substance-use-suds-... Also, when you look at the demise of countries, the acceptance of general homosexuality and transgender-ism are correlated. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8BRdwgPChQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8BRdwgPChQ To this end, one could make the argument that homosexual behavior is a public health crisis and should be banned along with non-monogamous heterosexual relationships.
- krapp 8y ago
  >Homosexuality brings with a high level of STDs even within a "couple". In part, because of efforts by right wing and religious groups to ensure that gay couples cannot receive treatment without risking their personal safety, and to deny homosexuals access to the same medical rights and privileges as heterosexuals. If there were no stigma to homosexuality, and no threat to the funding or reputation of doctors or programs that treat homosexuals, then the spread of STDs amongst that community would be lower. After all, it's not as if AIDS or syphilis knows the sexual preference of the person it infects, and decides not to infect straight people, or to double-infect gays, so the contributing factors here must be external, social and political. One needs to recognize the difference between gay lifestyles (there are more than one) when considering the negative aspects of sexual promiscuity therein, and the existence of homosexuality itself. One can criticize the former without demonizing the latter. Another factor, also related to the need for gay communities to remain isolated in many places, is the fact that there are fewer gay people than straight people, and therefore fewer potential partners, making the likelihood of infection higher. >To this end, one could make the argument that homosexual behavior is a public health crisis and should be banned along with non-monogamous heterosexual relationships. One could make that argument, but it would be an inhumane argument to make, which is why most people would oppose it.
  - virmundi 8y ago
    The gay community is full of people that love sex. They are known to be indiscriminate. They are known to actively eschew condoms. It's part of the mystique. Sure there are subgroups that don't, but they are few in number, especially among the young. Since this behavior is so prevalent, I don't think you can meaningfully separate it from homosexuality in general. To your ideas that funding and all that would be better and provide better outcomes all I have to do is point you to SF. Gays are loved there. No doctor since the 60s would get in trouble or lose prestige because he worked with them. Yet it has a terrible HIV/AIDS issue (http://sfaf.org/hiv-info/statistics/ http://sfaf.org/hiv-info/statistics/). Hell California dropped the federal crime of knowingly having unsafe sex since it was lobbied against by the homosexual community (probably a subset, but that's still a large enough mentality to show the problems). As to AIDS, it really does have a preference (not volitional, but statically). It prefers homosexual men. When you see it in heterosexual populations its either due to homosexual sex and then unprotected heterosexual sex, or due to blood infusion issues (which are largely done now in the West).
troupe 8y ago
> Some people are left-handed, some people have red hair, some people are gay. This is fundamentally different. I'm pretty sure if the entire population of a species was left handed or had red hair it would still survive. > since neither a single partner or no partner is optimal for survival. Single partner may be more optimal for survival when offspring don't mature in a matter of weeks, months or even years.