Quote:
Originally Posted by BlankCanvasDJ
I'm not sure you'd want to use the term "disease" though. There's no such thing as a good disease and, by definition, all diseases have adverse effects on the diseased. Homosexuality doesn't have an adverse effect - not a physical one, at least. It doesn't even really hinder reproduction. The need and desire to reproduce is still a part of many homosexuals (as many adopted children and surrogate mothers can attest to) and the ability to reproduce still exists. True, heterosexual desire is meant, from a natural standpoint, to increase reproduction but that doesn't mean that the desire to reproduce doesn't exist outside heterosexual desire.
Rather than a disease, I'd just call it a personality trait.
|
Yeah. Calling it a disease makes it sound like you pity the person for having it, and that they really shouldn't have it. In the current social climate regarding tolerance, it's not a good idea.
So, not "disease." Perhaps it could be called an "abnormality" or "dysfunction." I mean that psychologically or whatever--like they
have a dysfunction; not that they are, themselves, dysfunctional. "Abnormality" seems okay to me because I would define heterosexuality as normal (ie. of the norm), thus being an outlier from normal would then be
abnormal.
I wouldn't say it's "genetic" though--at least not entirely. Perhaps there is a genetic
predisposition toward it, but I disagree both that it's entirely genetic and... for lack of a better word, "uncurable" (I really tried to think of a different word) as people (my cousin for example) are fully capable of first being hetero, then turning gay, and then being hetero again.
EDIT: Someone will want to respond to this by referring to Kinsey's sexuality continuum (ie. people can be partially gay/hetero), but I'm just referring to being gay according to two factors: 1) are you presently having same-sex physical encounters; and 2) do you
desire to have same-sex physical encounters.