Why be gay?

This blog explains my views of homosexuality based strictly on a scientific and psychological perspective.

Sunday, December 10, 2006

Homosexuality and Politics: why homosexuality culture should not be encouraged

There are many reasons why Homosexuality culture should not be encouraged from being demonstrated in public. One of the reasons is that it supports a main characteristic of Homosexuality as rightful.

Talking about Homosexuality is different from talking about Religion, where Religion promotes the betterment of people, Homosexuality does not promote betterment in the character of a person, it mainly promotes freedom of expression and behaviour.

Homosexuals would argue that homosexuality is about "love" etc, but I wonder what their definition of love really is. What love really means to me, is to care and understand another person as if he/she is you. The earliest well-known definition of love is from the Bible, where it says to love your neighbour as you love yourself. It says to love a neighbour, who could be someone that one is not related to. Therefore the only logical meaning of love could only mean care, compassion and understanding for a fellow human being.

If homosexuality is not about compassion, then what could it be about? I have stated in previous blog posts that Homosexuality is a behaviour that people could use in order to distract them from their unwanted loneliness in life and as a distraction from many of their life's problems, similar as people who drink, take drugs or in other pleasure activities to distract their minds off things.

Homosexuality could even be used by people to free themselves from being trapped in a limiting dull kind of life, where they feel little personal freedom of expression. Therefore homosexuality could be seen by them to be liberating for their trapped expression of thoughts and behaviours.

However, not all thoughts and behaviour is respectful towards other people in a society, such as criminal behaviour and disrespectful thoughts.

If Homosexuality behaviour is to be decriminalised, it would sent a clear signal that the main characteristic behaviour of Homosexuality, which is same-gender sexual acts, would also be decriminalised across the board. This would then send a signal that other criminal acts such as underaged child sexual abuse and paedophilia would also be decriminalised and encouraged. Homosexuality, whether consensual or not, would then be seen as a legitimate outlet to free a person from his/her problems of trapped expression and sad loneliness.

Homosexuals should remember that what they are promoting of Homosexuality, doesn't only affect them but also many other groups of people. If homosexuals really feel that being gay is about love, then consider the consequences of how promoting the freedom of homosexuality could be misused by sex criminals, they could use it as an excuse to justify anything they do to other people.

Freedom of behaviour and expression has many levels. If there really are care, compassion and understanding for neighbours, then recognise what else homosexual activism could be legitimising in society as well. There are many ways for personal expression to be freed, but it cannot come at a huge price of encouraging criminal acts at the expense of other people in society.

18 Comments:

At 12:13 AM, Blogger longantree said...

"Talking about Homosexuality is different from talking about Religion, where Religion promotes the betterment of people, Homosexuality does not promote betterment in the character of a person, it mainly promotes freedom of expression and behaviour." Is that really so? If by talking you allow all forms of talking, then discussion of extremism acts may also be harmful. If by talking you refer to the discussion of said ideas to reach a better understanding of the issue, then, whether religion or homosexuality, it doesn't matter what the topic is.

"The earliest well-known definition of love is from the Bible." Again, not all of us acknowledge God, so some might find this definition obsolete.

"Therefore the only logical meaning of love could only mean care, compassion and understanding for a fellow human being." Please explain your train of thought; your flow of logic. How did you arrive at such a conclusion?

"If homosexuality is not about compassion, then what could it be about?" A valid enough question, just that you go on and on ranting about what if homosexuality is not about compassion. But what if it is? Where is your objectivity, your balanced judgement?

"Homosexuality could even be used by people to free themselves from being trapped in a limiting dull kind of life, where they feel little personal freedom of expression." This is rather ironic, considering that homosexual acts are criminalised, and even expressions of affection are frowned upon by the "vast majority".

"This would then send a signal that other criminal acts such as underaged child sexual abuse and paedophilia would also be decriminalised and encouraged." Again, how would it send such a signal? Where's your logic?

"If homosexuals really feel that being gay is about love, then consider the consequences of how promoting the freedom of homosexuality could be misused by sex criminals, they could use it as an excuse to justify anything they do to other people." This is beside the point. As you say, its just an excuse. Pretty much anything can be used as an excuse. Our issue is that we are unable to openly express our affection for our lovers without fear of discrimination. Denial of expression of love hurts us too; have you considered this?

"There are many ways for personal expression to be freed, but it cannot come at a huge price of encouraging criminal acts at the expense of other people in society." This statement, on its own, is acceptable by most people's moral standards. But when in your context, it becomes inappropriate, because it leads unwary readers to the false conclusion that decriminalising homosexuality encourages criminal acts.

Please, when you invoke logic, use it. Thou shalt not use the Lord's name in vain; and so it is for Logic.

 
At 4:21 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

somehow the whole article seem to link homosexuality with criminal acts such as peodophilia n child abuse.. which i think is a flawed logic
its not our choice to be gay.. but everyone has the capability to love, be it hetero, homo or bi sexual. and by making homosexual a crime, it meant criminalising an aspect of love...
have whybegay seen married same sex couples who have been together for years? if u do and make an effort to communicate with them, u will find that the love they had for each other is no different fomr anyone else

 
At 4:58 AM, Blogger whybegay said...

In the hands of a person, anything can be used as an excuse for love.
What makes homosexual love different from the love of friendship? What is your definition of love? Have you thought about it?

 
At 7:40 AM, Anonymous imm said...

Paragraph 1

What is your purpose of using the upper case in "Homosexuality" and "Religion"? It does not serve any apparent purpose other than informing me that you have bad punctuation. You're not writing poetry for goodness' sake. Anyone who reads this will know that homosexuality is homosexuality. You don't employ romantics in arguments.

Paragraph 2

Again, the capitalised "Religion" is irritating to the eyes. In making the claim that "Religion promotes the betterment of people", while homosexuality doesn't, you fail to give substantial evidence or any studies to buttress it. If anything, those are just your opinions. They are not all-encompassing, not adequately convincing, not sufficiently cogent for anyone to believe in them. In fact, you did not define your terms well. What does religion include? Extremist religion? Witchcraft to a certain extent could also be considered religion by some. Tighten and beef up your definitions.

Paragraph 3

Your definition is at best personal, not universal. You cannot convince me, nor anyone else for that matter about your definition. Everyone is made unique. Thus, no everyone's notions about love fits your definitions. Furthermore, by equating love to caring and understanding, you're oversimplifying love. Love, I believe, is abstract, and attempts to define it is laborious. Even the definition of love in a dictionary seems infantile and superficial.

Paragraphs 4 and 5

How accurate is this? Back up with evidence. Better still, conduct studies to prove your point instead of brainstorming and coming up with filmsy, theories.

Paragraph 6

True, at least I see a counterargument. At least there is something you know. What, however, has that got to do with your argument?

Paragraph 7

Again, the eye-sore capital "H". Punctuate properly. Really? How certain are you that you could extrapolate? If anything, you're committing the slippery slope fallacy. You're drawing false parallels as well. I cannot see the link between same-gender sexual acts and underaged child sexual abuse, unless you imply the innate criminal nature of gay sex, which in doing so you're committing the fallacy of equivocation and ad hominem.

Paragraph 8

Yes, I see another counterargument, but unfortunately, you're guilty of the fallacy of ad hominem. You paint a horrible picture of gays as being negligent social citizens with nary a concern for the ramifications that their activism will bring. Which is just not true and in fact, insidiously inflammatory. Attack the argument surrounding homosexuality activism, not homosexuals. The next fallacy you commit is, again, slippery slope. First, homosexuals and criminals share no similarities. Criminals are people who commit felonies and are punished for their misdeeds. Homosexuals are people who are gay (this should be obvious to you). Yet, I have to emphasise that homosexuals are not criminals by nature of their sexuality. And to infer such a conclusion from the gay's behaviour is grotesquely erroneous.

Paragraph 9

Fallacies committed: Ad hominem, false analogy and slippery slope - enough said. This is a very weak conclusion. Your conclusion should mirror your introduction, yet it failed to. You have a lot of reasons which you need to substantiate by providing readers with evidence from reliable studies, journals, periodical, magazines, et cetera. In addition, your reasons are all over the place. That makes reading extremely difficult and harsh for the eyes. The reader needs to sort through your thread of arguments. This, in turn, is exacerbated by the fact that your reasons are not cogent and not compelling enough. Overall, your piece reads like a rant full of prejudiced opinions that it borders on the execrable.

Work harder. Read more. Think more.

 
At 9:16 AM, Blogger whybegay said...

Can any homosexual tell me what his/her definition of homosexual love is, and how it is different from the love of friends.

If one doesn't know what this homosexual love is but insist that following this love is right and just, then it is similar as using "homosexual love" as an excuse for something rather than love.

If one wants to follow love, one must know what it is, and what it stands for. Not knowing would mean one is following something blindly, that one does not realise what one is doing.

 
At 5:36 PM, Anonymous imm said...

The purpose of gay activism is not exclusively about the fight for the right to love. You're myopic. Do your research before writing. It seems you don't know a lot of things. What you've written couldn't more reflect your deplorable state of your dearth of knowledge and awareness surrounding gay issues. I'm tired of your writing about gay this and gay that, and your writing through it will only lead you to bad, and dangerous places. I don't know if you crawled out of the '70's, the '80's, or the '90's, but wherever you come from is where you need to go back to. Humanity is a great deal more interesting and complex than your writings give credit.

 
At 10:49 PM, Anonymous Cliff said...

how do u define heterosexual love?
the answer u get for heterosexual love is the same for homosexual love..
love is abt commitment, respect, compassion and all the blah blah blah...
From wat i have read, i can safetly say u have not come across a homosexual couple who have been together for a few years..

 
At 12:57 AM, Blogger whybegay said...

If love is about "commitment, respect, compassion", then aren't these enough for people, why then has homosexuality got to do with this love? Why the necessary need to mix love with something physical? Homosexuality seems like something extra from love. Is Homosexuality an excuse or a way to get to love?

 
At 2:13 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 3:49 AM, Blogger whybegay said...

Sorry, to keep on topic, no further comments until my last question has been answered.

 
At 11:55 PM, Blogger Shaun Lee said...

Let's play a little game call "find and replace" to show how absolutely ridiculous your position is.

Let's replace heterosexuality with homosexuality in your little rant to get...
If love is about "commitment, respect, compassion", then aren't these enough for people, why then has heterosexuality got to do with this love? Why the necessary need to mix love with something physical? Heterosexuality seems like something extra from love. Is Heterosexuality an excuse or a way to get to love?

If your argument can be so readily render (in)coherent by the replacement of a word that ought to be contrary or contradictory, it means your argument lacks substance and meaning.

Or maybe you're arguing against any expression of sexuality altogether? Maybe this blog ought to be renamed: Why Be Sexual?

And I notice, you're still avoiding the other questions.

 
At 7:17 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

shaun, it is something called preference similar as homosexuals prefer the same gender to the other. I can choose what I want to talk about. I am not obligated to honor every single request as you are too if I told you to go and screw your male friends.

 
At 10:14 AM, Blogger Shaun Lee said...

Way to avoid a question! And note that I have answered your question by pointing out its essential meaninglessness and lack of substance.

Or to rephrase it: So why should heterosexuals prefer not to have sex or to have homosexual sex?

If you're going to make a point, you either need to substantiate it or admit you were mistaken and make corrections. Otherwise, you are no better than a crank and a fraud.

Worse still you're perpetuating heinous group libel and libel is false in case you were unaware.

Do the right thing.

 
At 12:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have never stated that I support any hetero or homosexual forms of sex as valid expressions of Love. This point bears striking resemblance of a misguided nature as Mr Wang's who told me my points about homosexual paedophiles are invalid because I left out refering to the straight ones. It's the same thing as me telling Mr Wang and shaun to go and screw their male friends if it suits their preferences so much, why not add in variety and do everything else since they are at it? If they don't screw their male friends, their other screws are invalid?

However back to the topic, there would be people out there who would disagree with me and say that homosexuality is one of their many myriad ways to express love.

Then I would reply by saying that if Homosexuality is such a fabulous self-expression of love, how come homosexuality is only expressed to some particular attracted persons? Why is homosexual sex exclusive only to attracted sexual mates and not to other people around them?

Then misguided gay activists would reply with some fabulous gibberish that expression of love=homosexuality x1000

Then I will knock my skull on the wall and reply that homosexuality is an outlet to express repressed feelings and emotions. If homosexuality is so much about love and all that, why are so many homosexuals' dysfunct families so lack of love and communication?

If homosexuality's claim to be about great love is so true and valid, how come it alone cannot bring more love into the world and save the day?

And then homosexuals would tell me that it is the "others like me" who are homophobic, ignorant, myopic etc while they kid themselves into deluding themselves that they are right and others are wrong, they are not doing any wrong.

All their denial is truly fabulous, but I'm not here to deal with ego-centric deludes in denial, I'm here to explain to the other clear headed people who can recognise what they are doing.

I may be passing the bread but if people only see the crumbs then that's what they can only see, they are the blind crumb eaters who scrap and eat anything that lies on the ground because they can't see the table. That's what you and the other emotional freaks are, blind crumb-eaters who scrap the ground for the leftovers of meals.

 
At 7:55 PM, Blogger Shaun Lee said...

Then what is your point (assuming you have one)? As I've expressed previously, your position applies equally well to expressions of heterosexual love as well.

And let's do the "find and replace" thing again....
Then I would reply by saying that if Heterosexuality is such a fabulous self-expression of love, how come heterosexuality is only expressed to some particular attracted persons? Why is heterosexual sex exclusive only to attracted sexual mates and not to other people around them?
Geez and it makes about as much sense. Once again, showing that your argument is incoherent and lacks any real substance or meaning.

Or to put it another way, it's not even wrong!

Furthermore, you haven't established a link between homosexuality and pedophilia when every single data set across every nation shows that more than 90% of such assaults are committed by heterosexual persons (i.e. out of proportion to their general numbers). So by your "logic" we should also stop promoting a heterosexual culture as well?

And again, you have failed to prove or even demonstrate much less substantiate that homosexuals tend to come from dysfunctional families and that it is the dysfunctionality of the family that causes their sexual orientation. So you can't even get past the very first hurdle for your ignorant assertion that homosexuality result from repressed feelings and emotions.

In fact because of misguided persons like you, some of them have to repress their desires and end up with long term, scarred and damaged psyches to the detriment of themselves and people around them. Ted Haggert readily comes to mind here.

And I've asked this before, aren't your arms tired from beating so many strawmen? Where does your sense of delusion come from that you would attribute an argument that homosexual love will save the world much less that it needs to?

And hell, there has not been a SINGLE study showing that children of homosexuals and homosexual families are more dysfunctional than heterosexual ones. In fact the converse is more likely true because a desire to create a family group HAS TO BE planned and considered.

Sexual orientation is this regard cuts both ways. You cannot attribute something to homosexuality that cannot simply be pointed out as against heterosexuality.

The only explanation you're doing is exactly to foster the sort of bigoted, prejudiced, ignorant and seriously myopic viewpoint that claim to be combating. No one is buying your martyr shtick.

 
At 1:47 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

shaun, I'm tired of your stupidity, please go and bother someone else.

 
At 12:53 PM, Blogger Shaun Lee said...

Oh boo hoo...once again throwing in the towel eh?

What did I expect?

 
At 9:16 AM, Blogger Free+Hope said...

I don't see what posting a comment on this obscure site will accomplish, but all the same I feel compelled. I agree with the author of this site on many different topics throughout different posts, but...he goes to unnecessary lengths to convey his point: homosexuality is "bad," or rather unnatural and should be avoided. Why? It's not love, it's indulgence. Love and sex are different. I love my dog, but I'm not going to sodomize it, just as I love my male friends, but will not have sexual relations with them. Why? Because love isn't sex. Sex feels good to biologically encourage procreation. The primary purpose of sex is procreation, not indulgence. Therefore, sex without intent to procreate is indulgent. Over indulgence in anything is negative. Why? Over indulgence in sex can lead to STD epidemics, unplanned pregnancy, abortion, etc, just as over eating can lead to obesity, mass consumption a ravaged earth, etc. Mankind should be capable of taming it's desires. Why is homosexual urges a desire that needs to be tamed? It promotes the satisfaction of the ego, potentially leading to a hedonistic society that cares only about fulfilling it's own desires--to Hell with everyone and everything else. All that, however, is irrelevant. Sex is for procreation. Homosexual sex is unnatural in that it doesn't lead to the contiuation of the species, thus forgoing the primary purpose of sex. If people still don't grasp that, it's as simple as saying, "If men were meant to bang other men, there'd be a hole for that (as there is with women, who then conceive and later give birth...men simply get up afterwards and at some point take a shit)." How can one argue that?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home