For those who might claim that homosexuality has no adverse affect on society I disagree.
First, studies have shown that homosexuals represent only 1-2% of the population.
And 0.06% of people have Dwarfism. If a minority group is deemed immoral and harmful to society if it has a prevalence of less than 5%, then why don't you consider Little People to be inherently detrimental to society? While their short stature poses health risks to
them, what detriment do they post to soceity?
Or could it be the prevalence of a particular minority is no bearing on its inherent morality?
Also, by far the majority of people are heterosexual and in fact the idea of having homosexual sex is a very uncomfortable and unnatural idea.
For you. The majority of heterosexuals don't think about homosexual sex, and vice versa. But the internal 'ick' factor is to be expected regardless of the morality of homosexuality: heterosexuals, by definition, aren't attracted to their own sex, so, by definition, same-sex sex doesn't appeal to them*. Likewise, homosexuals aren't attracted to the opposite sex, so opposite-sex sex holds little attraction to them.
In other words, that heterosexuals are generally turned off by same-sex sex, that's neither surprising nor pertinent.
*A caveat: same-sex sex that involves
their sex. Same-sex sex that involves the
opposite sex (e.g., a man watching two women, or a woman watching two men) does not cause that same internal 'ick' factor. Straight men don't like male-male sex because they're not attracted to men, but they like female-female sex because they're attracted to females. This is a gross oversimplification, but you get my point.
What I have seen living outside of the US for some time now in a country where homosexuality is not widely condoned nor accepted is the still apparent camaraderie among men and people in general. It is not uncommon for men to greet other men who are complete strangers with a smile and start up a conversation, as it is considered civil.
It used to be this way in the US by all accounts. However, not anymore. More and more it is interpreted in the "street" that if a man is overtly friendly or smiles excessively to other men that this behavior means they are homosexual. I learned this the hard way in the Army in the 80's. Raised a Catholic I led somewhat a sheltered life and tried to apply my loving values in the real world. More often than not I was considered to be a homosexual, which was disconcerting to say the least. Nonetheless, I had to make a change unfortunately.
It wasn't until I moved to the Dominican Republic with out wife and kids some years back that I saw how much camaraderie is valued here. No longer would I considered a homosexual for being friendly. The difference between the DR and the US with respect to societal interaction too is just as far reaching. Here, people are open and it is not only ok to look at small children and smile, one can talk to them as well. People here know their neighbors and if they see an acquaintance out in town, they will track them down and talk to them. While the DR is a poor country and has an inefficient corrupt government still this aspect is superior to the US and Europe.
I agree with you thus far, except for the bit about Europe. I have never been accused of being homosexual for being friendly towards a stranger of my own sex, for the simple reason that no one over here (in the UK, at least) gives a monkey's. Sure, there are anti-gay people lurking in the shadows, but, by and large, it's a non-issue.
But I agree that, in the US, there is a curious social stigma associated with being attracted to one sex or the other (or both, or, indeed, neither).
If people doubt what I say try see if people will even look at you passing by in the street. For that matter, try smiling to a guy (if you are a man) and striking up a conversation. I can assure you of the reaction in by far the majority of the cases.
The fact is the fear being "hit on" by homosexual is very much alive and well and normal in the US and is a simple knee jerk reaction to something that the majority of people find unappealing. Worse is the effect of not wanting to provoke such advances; people become reserved or downright antisocial. In fact, even I a devout Catholic found I had become borderline antisocial at times in my "public" demeanor.
While a tragic comment on society and culture in the US, it seems you're arguing against the social stigma against homosexuality, rather than homosexuality itself. As I said above, in the UK, because no one cares whether you're gay or not, no one cares if one man is overly friendly to another (maybe he's gay, maybe he's drunk, maybe he's just full of
joie de vivre). Is the existence of this lamentable social stigma not then a case
against
As we human beings thrive on interpersonal contact, "love" in it's simple and most basic form, homosexuality quells this very natural manifestation of our humanness. I further propose this is why anymore people are becoming more and more downright antisocial in public, as the "calming effect" of this natural and good feature of humanity is all but being quashed. I think it could be postulated that there are other serious side effects of this coldening and hardening of our society due to the forced acceptance of homosexuality.
If there was some sort of 'forced' acceptance of homosexuality, that would
negate the effect you talked about. As it happens, there's nothing forced about it: people are growing up, and new generations no longer see it as this dark perversion that the older generation generally did. The moral zeitgeist moves on, and the stubborn will always moan about a past lost to some perceived activism.
Did you know that those opposed to interracial marriage labelled lawmakers as 'activist judges'? Sound familiar?
And when did activism become a bad thing
Anyway. Your three objections, 1) that homosexuality is rare, 2)that same-sex sex is generally unappealing to heterosexuals, and 3) that the social stigma in US society against homosexuality has created an air of distrust towards percieved homosexuals, are not objections to homosexuality. They're either irrelevant as objections, or objections to something else entirely.
