Originally posted by HairlessApe
Rape, murder, theft, cannibalism--all naturally occurring also.
In short, I only need ONE sentence to defeat your logic. But for comedic value, I'll add a second.
"Heterosexuality is naturally occuring - just like rape, murder, theft, and cannibalism. I'm not saying heterosexuality and these atrocious acts
which don't involve two consenting adults are comparable, I'm just comparing them for absolutely no reason."
I'm not sure I saw the other thread referenced in the OP, but I definitely see where OP is coming from. Some people seem very anti-homosexual. And
because it's not PC to hate on homosexuality, they sometimes resort to "tricky" tactics to paint it in an unfavorable light. On the other hand, not
having seen the other thread and comment, I can't quite say if that's what was occurring. To be fair, out of context, I'm not sure drawing that
comparison is enough to make me say that. To play devil's advocate here, there is an actual point buried in that comment.
So that my intention is clear here, I'll preface by pointing out that homosexuality is NOT truly comparable to murder (or rape, theft, or
cannibalism.) The biggest and most important distinction here is that homosexuality is not inherently immoral (unless you are a member of a religion
which tells you that it is.) What I mean by "inherently immoral" is that things which are "inherently immoral" harm others against their will, by
the very commission of the act. Like murder, rape, theft, and cannibalism all harm unwilling participants.
Some would argue, however, that homosexuality goes "against the 'natural order' of things." And this is, to a degree, true. I am a male, and
biology designed my sexual parts to fit with female sexual parts. When done properly, this will create new life and perpetuate the species. Which
(theoretically) is good for the species. Now, if we were a small tribe living in the desert a few thousand years ago, I might be able to come up with
a successful argument for why homosexuality is harmful to our society. (This being potentially true for a tribe
whose success and even defense
were dependent on having a healthy, growing population.) But in the modern day (and especially with over-population being such an emerging problem)
that argument can not successfully be made. In fact, at this point in history it might be better for our entire species if there were more
homosexuality, and less breeding.
Now, some might argue that homosexuality is a psychological aberration. A psychological disease. And if we're being honest, I think this view is much
harder to argue against. And I know this will probably upset some people, especially with the connotations that the term "disease" has. If I had a
better, more accurate word, (minus those connotations) I would use it. "Aberrant psychological condition" is more netural, but doesn't quite roll
off the tongue, and some might not as clearly understand quite what I'm getting at.
That said, if this view were correct, that would make it a mostly harmless "disease." Completely harmless, were it not for idiotic homophobes and
hateful people who can't just peacefully coexist. Now, why do I say "disease?" Well, even advocates of homosexuality, and homosexuals themselves
ascribe to the view that you are "born with it." It is not a choice. Someone doesn't wake up one day and decide: "You know... I think I'll
start being attracted to people of my own gender, even though I know that may be social suicide in some circles (or my own family) , and I'll catch
lots of hate for it, etc etc... but I just want
to be so different that big insecure jocks want to beat me up."
Now, "disease" may not seem like the right word, in the regard that homosexuality is something you can not fix or "cure." Nor should it be seen
that way. Howevr, for the most part, addiction
is considered a "disease" although it realy functions more like a predisposition
you can ignore but never wholly get rid of. And this
is the one way in which the analogy drawn earlier is accurate, IMHO. Some people are
born driven to steal, rape, or kill. Of course "born with a predisposition" is where the comparison begins and ends, as I pointed out earlier--
since homosexuality harms no one-- and in fact, homosexuals rather enjoy it. (Social stigma aside, who doesn't enjoy exploring their own sexuality?)
But it is
something that makes a person function "differently" than the average / norm, and it is something you're born with a
predisposition to do. So on that one point, the analogy is accurate.
On all others, it fails.