Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.
"sickness" according to merriam-webster can be defined as a "disordered, weakened or unsound condition", whereas "disordered" stands for "morally reprehensible" (obsolete meaning) or "not functioning in a normal orderly healthy way".

so i can see how one could depict homosexuality as sickness but i can also see that there's a value judgement involved then, which is where i disagree with you, because of the following reasoning:

homosexuality isn't morally reprehensible, first and foremost because it doesn't affect me in the slightest what other consenting adults do to each other and considering that homosexuality has been around forever in human as well as in animal history i think it's safe to call it "normal and orderly". although, it's not normal in the sense that most people show this trait - it's normal that about 5-10% do (or whatever the recent estimates are). it's also healthy in the sense that it's not self-destructive (like an illness would be), except for the feedback and treatment they get from society, be it bullying/discrimination and therefore higher suicide rates or a simple push off of a rooftop.

are there fucking degenerate weirdos among homosexuals? yes, undoubtedly. just as there are among heteros. pointing at the misguided fringe people isn't an argument.

caveat: as far as i know the percentage of people who show unhealthy signs of sexuality (promiscuity, sex drive, sex focus) is a bit higher in the LGB community but even if that's true that's not enough to qualify them all as generally sick.
Reposted byp856naich

Don't be the product, buy the product!