The problem about the real homosexuality is that it can generate among the youth (first and foremost) cases of the "fake homosexuality" when people want to be homosexual simply because it's a fashion (which was promoted by countless gay-parades and people like you who says it's normal).
This is a major problem with your argument. If you genuinelly think that people can become homosexual (i.e. they find members of their own sex physically atractive) purely because homosexuality is accepted by society, then you are totally ignorant in regards to the nature of homosexuality.
Pls feel free to "tear apart my pathetic argument".
It's already been done:
Secondly, what it is if not an illness if it prevents people to procreate and adapt?
Do you stand by this statement?
If so, do you believe that people who choose not to procreate or use contraception are ill? After all, you have defined something which "prevents people to procreate and adapt" as an illness.
And I showed the weak spot of your concept. Nobody wants to be blind, deaf, legless. Everybody knows that it's an impairment. Nobody says "it's alright". Other people are trying to help disable, support them, help them, cure them. Children won't grow up blind, deaf or legless just because they've seen such people on TV. Did you get the difference? Did you finally understand where the problem was? Do not say it is normal, do not promote homosexuality.
Again, you completely understand the nature of homosexuality. PEOPLE DON'T CHOOSE TO BE GAY. Normalizing or accepting homosexuality will not turn people gay, likewise, condemnation of homosexuality will not prevent homosexual tendencies occuring in humans. If you can grasp this very simple fact, you will understand that your argument is totally flawed.
Disability naturally occurs in humans yet disabled people are catered for and not ostracized. Why should gay people be treated diferently? Gay can't be cured, believe me, I know plenty of gay people who wish they weren't. Multiple Sclerosis can't be cured. When someone is diagnosed, should they then be "localized". Should we prevent disabled people from appearing on tv or interacting outside their community as to ensure that disability is not promoted? It's a ridiculous notion.
The healthy man needs none of those.
What about a man who fires blanks? Should he be "localized"? What if young kids get the idea of becoming "fake jaffas". What then?
Oh, guess you're right, then. OCD has no effect on people whatsoever, and is in no way a disease or impairment.
I didn't say that. You can define OCD however you want (disease, impairment, imperfection). I know people who are biologically overweight which acts as an impairment when running around a football pitch. I know people with a lower IQ than others which acts as an impairment in their dailly lives. The vast majority of humans have imperfections, what actually defines something as normal? How "stupid"do you have to be until you are classified as having "learning difficulties"?
Regardless of the above, how does homosexuality act as an impairment? Homosexuals can (and often do) have children, they just often chose not to (because they don't find woment atractive). Some heterosexual people make the same choice (not to have children) for different reasons (financial, personal etc.). What is the difference, and why should the former be ostracized for it? After all HOMOSEXUALITY NATURALLY OCCURS in humans and animals.
PAN, regardless of whether you define homosexuality as an illness, provide a good reason for the ostracization of homosexuals which goes beyond the already pedalled falsehood that acceptance of homosexuality is some form of indoctrination which can turn people gay!
