Why was the “Homosexuality is a defect” thread deleted?

DingoJones

The person who posted it asked an honest question, it wasnt hate filled it was just ignorant. How is an ignorant person supposed to learn if no one has the chance to correct them?
Here is what I responded
“
Well in what way is not being able to have kids a “defect”? Why wouldnt you refer to that as a trait instead? Defect implies something negative, you used being blind as an example because its easy to see how being blind creates problems across the spectrum of someones life....the same doesnt hold true for not having kids. Thats not something that creates problems across the spectrum of someones life. Not being able to have kids creates problems of having kids, and thats about it. Some people can whistle, others cannot, some can curl their tongue or wiggle their ears or run fast or jump high or have red hair and some people can have kids. The value of any if that is going to depend on the individuals values and I dont think “defect” is the right term nor the right way to think about differences (in values or otherwise).
I mean, would you say the same thing about someone who just doesnt want to have kids? Are they defective for not having the biological desire to have kids?
I dont think so, I think you are projecting your own values (that its good to have kids) onto others and then calling them defective when they dont share your values. This seems especially harsh when you are saying it about something people do not have a choice over. Is a short person defective? What about tall? Maybe if they are trying to fit somewhere small or pluck something from up high, but again I dont think defective is the right term.

So yes, I think you are off here. You havent shown how homosexuality is a “defect”, you have only pointed out a specific difference. I think youve mistaken “different” with “defect”. ”

I would like a chance for that person to respond. Isnt that why are here? To learn?
I understand that calling homosexuality a defect is problematic, but that person obviously didnt as evidenced by the nature of their opening disclaimer (which clearly shows they do not understand the issue people would have with suggesting homosexuality is a defect).
They understand that homosexuals shouldn't be treated differently rights wise, cant we have the opportunity to get them the rest of the way there?

BitconnectCarlos

↪DingoJones

Dingo, you do know that homosexuals can have kids, right? I feel like given that new information you may want to revise your response.

Jack Cummins

↪DingoJones

I never read the thread but I would say that the very word 'defect' is open to criticism because it makes a value judgement about normality and acceptability.

LuckyR

Sounds like a mod felt it was "hate speech" whereas I agree that it seems to be based on ignorance as you mention.

tim wood

↪BitconnectCarlos

:up:

And, what, exactly, is homosexual? Or is it at least two different things that appear similar and have the same name? I'm thinking that maybe there is "nature" homosexuality, in which DNA rules and you are just plain homosexual in the same respect that maybe you wear size 11 shoes or are six feet tall. Or, "nurture" homosexuality, being that set of influences on your life that "make" you go that way - and that maybe further influences could make you go the other way. Maybe.

If it's a "choice," what does that mean, and can you choose hetero- today, homo- tomorrow, back to hetero-, and maybe bi- for a while? Or is it behaviour at all?

Men and women do many of the same things - some things cannot exactly be done by both. Is it that set of behaviours that is determinative?

At least one of us has made it clear that (in his experience, on his understanding) a gay person just knows if they're gay. Fine and good, but that does not really clarify what it is, only some of the signs. Or is homosexuality not a thinking but a tendency, what you do most often?

And maybe the answer depends on who is asking and why they're asking, and maybe in their asking for their own purposes they have to establish a definition of their own just to ask. But even that does not answer - or even address - the basic question.

I submit there is no answer, or many conditional answers, and therefore any given answer is necessarily suspect. Which puts it all into the eye of the beholder. Education here appreciated.

counterpunch

Likely, because it's offensive. I don't think that's a good reason to delete it myself. I think offensive questions have to be asked. Perhaps - "Is homosexuality a defect?" would have been a better title, and were that the question, then I would have to answer, no!

Homosexuality is a consequence of evolution in a hunter-gatherer tribal context, wherein sexual opportunity was monopolised by the alpha male and his lieutenants. Homosexuality among excluded males allowed for bigger tribes, better able to compete. So, no - homosexuality is a natural consequence of evolution, and was an advantage.

It's only very recently, in evolutionary terms - that hunter gatherer tribes joined together to form multi-tribal social groups, and it was in the context of the social group that marriage - or enforced monogamy, gave access to sexual opportunity for all. Traditionally, this was arranged marriage with scant regard for anything like romantic love. The primary purpose of marriage was procreation and inheritance.

In this multitribal social context, homosexuality became delegitimized - even criminalised in favour of the enforced monogamy of marriage; but as marriage based in romantic love became normalised homosexuality is cast in a different light. It's more accepted now, because we believe people should be with who they are attracted to; and homosexual attraction has a basis in nature.

DingoJones

Dingo, you do know that homosexuals can have kids, right? I feel like given that new information you may want to revise your response. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes I realise that but pointing it out is pedantic, a waste of my time and a failure to address the main issue. Leave such commentary to the petty.
Thank god for you though :roll:

fdrake

The person who posted it asked an honest question, it wasnt hate filled it was just ignorant. How is an ignorant person supposed to learn if no one has the chance to correct them? — DingoJones

I deleted it because it was clearly homophobic. Because the OP of that thread seemed well intentioned I just warned them rather than banning them.

DingoJones

↪Jack Cummins

Yes, “defect” stood out right away as problematic. Thats the primary mistake made by the poster, a simple enough mistake to point out if the thread hadnt been deleted.

Michael

homosexual attraction has a basis in nature. — counterpunch

As opposed to a basis in the supernatural?

counterpunch

↪Michael

As opposed to a basis in the supernatural? — Michael

As opposed to a basis in deviant psychology!

DingoJones

↪fdrake

Homophobic? Because of the word “defect”? Did you miss the disclaimer portion, where the poster explained explicit non-homophobic behaviour in their day to day life?
Also, how do you reconcile the post being homophobic AND well intentioned?
It was an honest question by the poster and was not homophobic. It was a a good faith OP in my view, could you have perhaps made a kneejerk reaction that you could rectify?

Jack Cummins

↪DingoJones

I feel that you are missing the historic basis of the word 'defect' being applied to gay people, or any particular group of people.

tim wood

Homosexuality is a consequence of evolution — counterpunch

You mean it's in DNA?

Ciceronianus

I would like a chance for that person to respond. Isnt that why are here? To learn? — DingoJones

Well, it isn't clear to me that we're here to learn whether homosexuality, or being Black, or being Jewish, or being disabled, etc. is or is not a defect.

unenlightened

Well, it isn't clear to me that we're here to learn whether homosexuality, or being Black, or being Jewish, or being disabled, etc. is or is not a defect. — Ciceronianus the White

Perhaps not already knowing is a defect?

counterpunch

In part, but it's also environmental. It's nature and nurture; in that a genetic pre-disposition was fostered by an environment in which sexual opportunity was monopolized by alpha males.

DingoJones

↪Jack Cummins

No, Im aware. I realise its use by homophobic or anti-gay rhetoric. Its something ignorant people use, and its also something people use when they hate/dislike gay people. Only the former applied to that OP, I saw no hate in it. My point in this thread is about discourse. That person asked an honest question and was not allowed an honest answer. That person can’t learn why “defect” is problematic unless its pointed out to them. This cannot be done if their post is deleted.

Ciceronianus

Perhaps not already knowing is a defect? — unenlightened

My compliments. The "Bigotry is a defect" thread is yours to begin.

DingoJones

Well, it isn't clear to me that we're here to learn whether homosexuality, or being Black, or being Jewish, or being disabled, etc. is or is not a defect. — Ciceronianus the White

Obviously I meant learning in the broader sense. We are here to discuss things, discussion is important in learning about your own positions as well as others. Discussion is prevented by such deletion. That homosexuality is not a defect might be obvious to me and you, but not to others.

Ciceronianus

Where's Dr. Mengele when we need him? He'd start all sorts of threads about defective people.

Jack Cummins

↪DingoJones

I would imagine that it may not have been so problematic if it had not been in the title. It would make it stand out like a newspaper headline.

But the writer has not been banned so may get to see this discussion, hopefully.

unenlightened

My compliments. The "Bigotry is a defect" thread is yours to begin. — Ciceronianus the White

I think I would much rather argue that it is a sin. We are familiar with the language of classification 'defective' and the vile policies that flow therefrom. Or perhaps the culpably ignorant are not familiar. To them, I think the house policy dictates that they educate themselves via google or elementary 20th century history before they dare to consider starting a thread in this forum.

Kenosha Kid

As opposed to a basis in the supernatural? — Michael

:heart:

Kenosha Kid

Well, it isn't clear to me that we're here to learn whether homosexuality, or being Black, or being Jewish, or being disabled, etc. is or is not a defect. — Ciceronianus the White

:heart: Gotta lotta love to give tonight.

praxis

Well in what way is not being able to have kids a “defect”? — DingoJones

Not being able to have a child with your spouse or significant other is a deficiency, simply.

Why wouldnt you refer to that as a trait instead? — DingoJones

It can be both.

I mean, would you say the same thing about someone who just doesnt want to have kids? Are they defective for not having the biological desire to have kids? — DingoJones

I don't want kids, but if I did it's great that I wouldn't have to have sex with a man in order to have them. That could be considered a benefit in some odd way.

I think you are projecting your own values (that its good to have kids) onto others and then calling them defective when they dont share your values. — DingoJones

No, I'm saying that it's great to be able to have children with your spouse or the person you love and share your life with.

Is a short person defective? — DingoJones

Let's just say they're vertically challenged.

What about tall? — DingoJones

Being too tall could have health implications.

Gus Lamarch

The discussion on this thread is a beautiful portrait of how intellectual totalitarianism has already established itself in society.

"Until when, so that the Theodosius of our time decrees his Edict of Thessalonica? - I wonder."

DingoJones

↪DingoJones
I would imagine that it may not have been so problematic if it had not been in the title. It would make it stand out like a newspaper headline. — Jack Cummins

Indeed, but mods should delete threads for their content more so than the thread name.
I just think its bad for this forum and its discussions to delete a thread like that, how many other threads get deleted before anyone sees it, and for such weak reasons.
The OP ended with an open ended “so, am I wrong?”. Apparently we have a bunch of people who know the answer was yes, but never got to tell him/her why or how.
I understand mods need to delete threads and enforce the guidelines but there is a level of comfort that with it that I think is damaging to discourse.

unenlightened

Not being able to have a child with your spouse or significant other is a deficiency, simply. — praxis

Good grief! The amount of scientific energy that has been invested in controlling fertility declares that being able to have a child with your spouse is something strenuously to be avoided most of the time, via vasectomy, coil, pill, sheath, abstinence, or, praise the lord in His mercy, menopause. Oh yes, sexist, age-ist and frankly fuckwitted - literally.

Jack Cummins

↪Gus Lamarch

Perhaps the problem is that sex has been repressed and suppressed area of discussion within philosophy, while being the centre of many other aspects of culture. Perhaps this tension is arising in the cracks, as part of cultural collapse. Perhaps the unconscious is bursting through like a raging fire.

BitconnectCarlos

↪tim wood

I think homosexuality comes down to one's biological responses - who are you attracted to? We can't control our sexual desires and arousal, but we of course (hopefully!) control our ability to exercise them. When people say "homosexuality is a choice" they're probably talking about people who choose to have gay sex, not homosexuals who don't partake.

↪praxis

If not being able to conceive or being too short is a deficiency, is not being able to dunk a deficiency? Why can't I just say that all men under 6'5 are vertically deficient? People can have weird stupid opinions all they want but in the end it's just another weird stupid opinion.

Why was the “Homosexuality is a defect” thread deleted?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions