How can men behaving like sissies and/or not being able to procreate due to psychological reasons possibly be a good thing?
Questions:
- Does it have to be a good or bad thing? Why are you assigning moral value to a biological process?
- Do all gays and lesbians act like sissies? Who defines what is a sissy? Is being a sissy good or bad, morally? Why or why not? Is there just one type of gay person, or a variety of them, just like with straight people? Is sissy a defining characteristic of gay? Who determines the social standard of what a man and a woman are supposed to look like?
- Why is procreation being dragged into this? Is sexual activity that does not result in procreation necessarily wrong? Is birth control wrong? Why or why not? If people are sterile, are they damaged and their relationships ruined?
- Does homosexuality come from a psychological source or is there a biological component? (We clearly have scientific precedent in other species that cross-gender sexual behavior can have a biological mechanism driving it. That's been known for how many decades now? Basic research, regardless of whether you accept it for human beings...)
Personally, your emotional reactions to gay people don't concern me. They are what they are. We can't help our emotions. As you say, "On an emotional level, though, I think it's just freaking disgusting as well. Much like I think water is wet. It just is." Fine. I might have similar emotional reactions myself.
I just see you reacting to emotions in kneejerk fashion rather than processing them as data and trying to sift through what they mean. Prejudice (not just in this area, but ANY area), racism, bigotry, and a whole host of social evils are driven primarily by people reacting primarily to their emotional impulses, rather than processing and critiquing them, to determine what to act on and what to set aside. That's what bothers me about the attitude I've typically seen here.
Seems like something bad to me, objectively speaking.
Please. It's not objective in the least, it's clearly emotional and SUBJECTIVE.
Even your few "objective" points (such as the "sex w/o procreation") are habitually argued in other contexts (politics, religion, etc.) without people ever being able to agree.
So if the strength of emotional impulse is what matters, which one of us gets to determine reality? You? Me? Someone else? What a load of bunk.
You're going to have to make your case on something other than the degree of your emotional response.
I'm generally open to new ideas, i'm actually sort of progressive politically speaking, but I refuse to just follow when i think it's wrong. If anything, just gliding along agreeing with everyone can't exactly be viewed as being very enlightened.[/
Which is fine.
I'd just like to see an actual argument, rather than the emotional lashing out.
For some reason, you seem to think it's your conclusion that is attracting negativity to your opinion, where actually it's the process you use to reach your conclusion that seems to be creating offense. You can control
that. You're a smart guy.