homosexuals have spent [too] many years trying to force their views and lifestyle chocies off on the culture by means of laws and the court system, to be able to shy away from such things as binary labels, now.

The law of unintended consequences doesn't discriminate, it hits everybody. However, this shouldn't have caught them by surprise either, anybody could have seen this as the logical end of classifying homosexuality as a biological difference.

Thing is, we're dealing with a double edged sword, here...

Without making judgements about the lfestyle chocies themselves for the moment, I submit to you that homosexuals have spent many years trying to force their views and lifestyle chocies off on the culture by means of laws and the court system, to be able to shy away from such things as binary labels, now.

is Homosexuality a "defect"? Is choosing not to have children until one is 50 yrs old a "defect"?

According to Darwin's laws... pretty simple... The whole point of having progeny is passing on one's genes. If you do not do that, you are a "failed" gene line. End of story.

That does not make one a failure, it just means your gene line is. (face it, most of ours are anyway) (amazing how many people get upset at that simple statment of fact)

Still, as an about to be grandfather (the baby girl I always wanted and never had) I CAN'T WAIT!!! (One week or less)

tom

So how do you explain animals being homosexual?

If they are exclusively homosexual, and not in fact opportunistically bisexual, then I would consider that a biological defect as well since it would prevent their reproduction.

Mind you, I'm not passing judgment about it being good or bad, right or wrong, sinful or not. Just because something is a biologically defect, doesn't make it bad, immoral, or anything other than a biological defect.

I don't know anything about serial killers. I have read some studies with regards to pedophilia.

But keep in mind that it said "disproportionate" not more. The vast majority of pedophiles are going to be heterosexual, because there are far more of them in the population.

Due to how you phrase that I assume that you assume that that is part of natural instinct, survival of the species and such. So how do you explain animals being homosexual?

Fair enough about the common use argument, but defect does have a rather negative connotation.

Homosexuality does have a rather negative effect on reproduction. If we assume that reproduction is a fundamental feature of who we are, then homosexuality would be classified as a defect as much as asexuality or hermaphroditism.

Is that a fact or an assumption? I thought most pedophiles were incestuous fathers with little daughters and I never heard that most serial killers are homosexual.

Thanks for the welcome back. Fair enough about the common use argument, but defect does have a rather negative connotation.

And on a side note, it's good to see you blogging again (although you could have been doing it elsewhere and I just didn't know about it).

I think the word you are looking for is maladaptive, meaning that homosexuality doesn't help propagate the species. I certainly wouldn't describe it as a defect.

Here then is the question we each must face honestly, or this discussion will go where it's always gone... nowhere...

Posutulate two similar maladies... one involving sexual preference, the other merely involving other aspects of behavior, where the proximate causes of each are very closely related. What makes one thing an abnormality to be treated and cured, and another a "lifestyle choice"?