Why was the “Homosexuality is a defect” thread deleted?
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?
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?
Comments (111)
Dingo, you do know that homosexuals can have kids, right? I feel like given that new information you may want to revise your response.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
As opposed to a basis in the supernatural?
Quoting Michael
As opposed to a basis in deviant psychology!
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?
I feel that you are missing the historic basis of the word 'defect' being applied to gay people, or any particular group of people.
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.
Perhaps not already knowing is a defect?
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.
My compliments. The "Bigotry is a defect" thread is yours to begin.
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.
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.
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.
:heart:
:heart: Gotta lotta love to give tonight.
Not being able to have a child with your spouse or significant other is a deficiency, simply.
Quoting DingoJones
It can be both.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting DingoJones
Let's just say they're vertically challenged.
Quoting DingoJones
Being too tall could have health implications.
"Until when, so that the Theodosius of our time decrees his Edict of Thessalonica? - I wonder."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
To clarify, homosexuals can conceive children. They cannot conceive children with those they presumably love romantically and in that way may experience a deficiency.
Not being able to reach the cupboard without a boost is a deficiency, as is being incapable of dunking. Is it not PC to say this?
Sexuality is a topic I'm not willing to enter - at least not in this forum -.
I just “posted” something here that apparently was considered so inappropriate by the powers that be that it never appeared...would y’all like to see it?
I think that the thread is going in a dangerous direction.
:chin: :zip:
Nothing never appears due to manual moderation. We don't work at the speed of light. If you want to run it by one of us, send it by PM. Don't post something deliberately to provoke us or you might be too successful.
I'm glad I'm not the only one wondering this.
That would only be appropriate if this thread was homophobic since that was the reason given for the other ones deletion. The topic itself wasnt the issue, and the topic in this thread has no homophobia so what are you even talking about? Is your modding guided entirely by your emotions/idealogy? You seem to be looking for teasons to exercise your banning power...
The ghost of Robespierre will not forgive you, sir.
Well, that backfired...
I don't know it is that straightforward. I just got a reply from my comment about philosophy and sex in which the person seemed to think that any discussion of sexuality on the forum was breaking the boundaries. So, I am not even making a jesting comment and I feel that I have broken a taboo. So, I am left feeling really confused.
If someone is seriously confused about any of those then a response is warranted, as opposed to someone just being hateful where I would agree a response is less warranted.
If a person is sincerely asking the question, why wouldnt you respond? You dont believe in teaching moments?
Nor did I mean to provoke anyone...just state an opinion...
If someone said “some men are born slaves”, would you censure him?...Aristotle said it.
Yes. We don't live in ancient Greece. Times have moved on a bit.
My view, as I've expressed it also on the mod forum, is that we're not a daycare centre for moral kindergarteners.
No, it's not.
This thread isnt about homosexuality being a defect, its about why the other thread was deleted. Are you even paying attention or, again, are you simply rules by your emotions?
No one is defending the claim that homosexuality is a defect. The opposite. Whats at issue is why we were not given the opportunity to correct that claim when it was made, especially since the OP was declared well intentioned by the mod who deleted it.
If it isnt I’m going to have to return my car placard.
I am glad, because I don't think that discussion on sexuality should be beyond the boundaries, or we would be going back into a Kantian atmosphere. I thought that the thread on the ethics of masturbation was really unique.
Which is why, were you able to read, I spoke of those who looked to turn this thread into the one that was deleted. So maybe save the hysterics about 'paying attention' for the home ground hey?
So much for the moral kindergarten defense.
I'm not going to do that unilaterally right now, there are different opinions among the mods on levels of censorship, but there are limits we'll adhere to.
:up:
No one is asking you to, in fact the issue is why we aren’t allowed to engage the person. No babysitting involved other than checking for breaches of the guidelines which you do anyway, and potentially deleting something, which was done anyway.
I understand wanting to drop the hammer to deter bigots etc from polluting the forum, but thats not what this is. It really seemed like a sincere question, and not the kind of toxic garbage you are talking about.
Like who? And also, That wasnt why the thread was deleted, according to the mod who deleted it.
Also, “no YOU cant read”. Just flip what I said about you back around to deflect the actual point being made huh? Someone was saying something about childish behaviour? Grow up.
Well Im not really making the PC point. Im not even really sure PC is at work in a significant way among the mods. They seem to be concerned about guidlines, as they should be. If PC was a problem in this forum, wouldnt NOS be banned?
I even understand what that mod was looking for (homophobia), i just think he was mistaken about finding it.
Also, I get that this forum mod team doesnt have free speech as its highest priority, maybe its not even top 5. This isnt a platform for free speech, there are rules about what and how things can be said and consequences if those rules aren’t followed. They dont want this place to be filled with bigoted screwheads. I get it, I just think that a non-bigoted screwhead got caught in the crossfire. Maybe the mods disagree, but I think its very important to the forums quality and long term life span that we do not lose potential value (not necessarily for them, but for anyone less enlightened than them, who might benefit from a discussion they would find moral kindergarten) from discussions by casualties of that war with the bigots. Certainly the poster who was deleted would jave benighted from the discussion. That should mstter.
No offense but I didnt find the masterbation thread compelling at all. Thats my point though, if people engage then it's probably worth keeping around, and let it die in its own. Even if its something I dont like or have interest n.
I don't think that any of this is about whether discussions are compelling or not to one another. I think it is more about whether topics are sensitive. The one on masturbation was different from this one because it began with an actual philosophical question about ethics and I don't think that it has been explored much in this way before. I am probably going to be remembered notoriously on the site for my passionate interest in the philosophy of masturbation, but I can live with that.
I’m thinking that it was all about the optics of the title, so basically PC in nature. Clearly far worse content is allowed, so the moral kindergarten defense doesn’t pan out. Also, a search suggests that homosexuality in general isn’t handled with kid gloves by the moderation team.
Homophobia is a pc word. Why? Because It was created after standards of correctness emerged on the cultural scene following upon an evolution of thinking about gender, an evolution in which some segments of culture have participated more than others. Like all such standards of correctness, whether it is recognized as appropriate or censorious depends on where on that spectrum of development one finds oneself.
I’m not complaining. I understand that lines have to be drawn for convenience sake. I’m just reminding of their arbitrary nature. Who’s in and who’s out depends on who’s got the power.
Personally, I’d prefer the mods banned such speech because it doesn’t lead to philosophically interesting conversation, rather than using a moralistic rationale.
Lol. I had forgotten about it but you keep reminding us.
I dont think there should be such a thing as a topic being too sensitive in a discussion forum. Any topic should be able to be breached by mature adults.
That may be the way it emerged, I couldn't say, but thats not how I intend it nor do I think thats the way its generally understood today. Everyone knows what homophobe is, a person who hates or dislikes gay people, someone who holds being gay against someone. Thats whats not acceptable on this forum and thats what he was looking for.
Everyone knows what a homophobe is except the homophobe. The definition of a homophobe is someone else you accuse of having malevolent intent because you can’t understand why they think the way they do. Built into the definition is your assumption that they simply want to hate ,rather than that they have traditional
religious values , or believe that homosexuality is a perversion. Good lord , prior to 1970 the medical and psychiatric establishment held this as an official diagnosis. There were laws on the books in many countries punishing them for deviance. Was this society-wide belief motivated by hatred, or was the hostility a symptom of ignorance? If the latter, why is it so hard to accept that not all segments of culture evolve at the same pace? How does it help to demonize those who are still clueless?
Ok.
Then I started witnessing actual bans, and I still wasn’t alarmed because they seemed justified on the basis of whatever anecdotal evidence I received. I always felt I could say what I felt and give my reasons for it, even if it was controversial in nature...
Then, in this very thread, I posted an opinion based in reason and untainted by hate that was deleted almost immediately by a moderator (I prefer to call him a censor), @Baden, who not only threatened me, but lied that my post had not been taken off (the threat was proof of the lie).
But worst of all, after I gave an example of one of Aristotle‘s opinions that might, today, be considered offensive, Mr. Baden suggested he would have banned Aristotle from the “philosophy“ forum had he posted such scandalous material here! Wouldn’t that be sort of like kicking Michael Jordan off the basketball team because his play was too antiquated?
Mr. Baden said that we don’t live in Ancient Greece, that times have moved on. Well, we don’t live in Ancient Rome either, nor Machiavelli’s Italy, nor Locke’s or Shakespeare’s (an obvious anti-Semite’s) England, nor Rousseau’s France, who said he didn’t believe a woman could be unwillingly raped. It seems to me that to avoid unphilosophic behavior one ought to quit reading the philosophic tradition.
In fine, I perceive clearly that my days (or hours) as a member of this forum are numbered, and the number isn’t long!
What? I didn't delete your post or lie about anything. Posts aren't deleted before they appear. Another mod, I found out later, deleted your post after it appeared. Not going to respond to the rest.
:ok:
I don't know what you're on about or really care at this point. You seem to be intent on a nitpicky argument. Stick with what Street told you.
It would be helpful if you were to explain exactly what it is that you think you’re prohibited from expressing/discussing.
I'm not a moderator, but my guess would be that none of them (or anyone else for that matter) would care much regarding what you read. For my part, you may read what philosophers of the past wrote about any number of things to your heart's content. It should be apparent, though, that what you choose to read and what you choose to post in a forum are two different things.
Today, I started the thread on prejudice because I think that the topic needs to be explored in a far more constructive way, However, I am not sure that the intention of the thread was about prejudice as such, but it was about censorship. But, I do believe that attitudes and questions about prejudice and questions about assumptions because the idea of 'defect' was explored. But, currently this thread is just about moaning.
Edit:
Please don't take this as a response to your comment. It just feels so horrible when this thread keeps popping up, but I am coming from the angle of not liking the term 'defect' applied to anyone.
:lol: Depending on the nature of defect, of course.
Am I not PC enough?
It reminds me of a Thomas Sowell quote:
“If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 50 years ago, a liberal 25 years ago, and a racist today.”
This thread wasnt intended to be about censorship, it was about the deletion of the thread, the weak reasons for that deletion and an overall point about how that sort of thing is detrimental to interesting discussions. (It destroys them)
There is a reason the most active topics are full of petty, pointless and dishonest back and forth. Its because that kind of behaviour is ignored or even championed (Streetlight for example) where as an honest question with no ill intention can get deleted because of a single word.
This “so what, fuck’em they're assholes” mentality is toxic and destructive to good discussions.
Certainly not PC, no. I think that if expressing unpopular or non-PC views was enough alone to get you banned then you would have been banned. Even though they despise you, you remain. That speaks to whether or not the bannings are bias/PC driven. They dont seem to be, but then again you could be a sleeper agent for the mods, so that they can execute their PC agenda while having you to point to as evidence they dont have one. Diabolically clever!
(Im kidding of course.)
I was rather relieved by your response and then saw the response, of someone trying to justify the whole question, with 'Depends on the defect. I thought that after a night that this thread would fizzle out, but it doesn't seem it will. I came to this forum because I wanted philosophy discussion and as far as I see it this thread is lowering the whole quality of the site. Even as I write this, I can see the originator of this post is writing an angry one to me, after I expressed my feelings about the thread earlier. It just seems that some people don't respect that it is a philosophy site rather than a dumping ground for hostility.
I have astigmatism too and other eye problems which could be called defects in technical medical terminology, but I hope that this would just useful as part of my medical records and not beyond. I think that it depends on the context and how a term is used and when it is is used to categorise a group of people on the basis of a characteristic then it is another matter. On some level, none of us are 'perfect' but I still maintain that the word defect has a derogatory tone.
Do you not see that a title seeing a whole group of people as being defective is problematic? The whole point of this thread was to query why the original was deleted. Perhaps this thread is serving some purpose and that is why I am even writing an answer in it. But I do believe that it is unfortunate that this thread is necessary on a site like this.
I thought that was a joke. As in it's ok to call caucasians 'melanin defectives'. Not.
Perhaps it was a joke. That is the problem with online discussions. There is no non verbal interaction and written words can become too concrete. Perhaps none of the tension would have arisen the other night if we were in real life discussion. It may have all been melodrama.
Of course, Socrates did get kicked out of Athens...and out of his own life, by the Athenian powers-that-be, and modern thinkers are indignant about that, as the most extreme form of censorship, because they have been educated in the Enlightenment ideal of free speech, which was formulated to keep Socrateses from being sentenced to death...
...but in our day, supposedly more enlightened than any day in history, we must still fear the hemlock...
...of course getting banned from an internet site can scarcely be compared to being forced to drink poison, but it has the same effect on philosophical discussion. Advanced egalitarianism has not corrected the prejudices of past times and discriminatory places; it has rather replaced those old prejudices with new ones, which in turn become the new bases for prohibiting speech.
There is now, since my encounter with the rulers of this place, who I must know are now watching every word I say, a whole slew of questions, innocent and unspiteful, that I dare not ask except to my own little self, when my whole motivation when I became a member here was to have the freedom to ask them to someone else.
There's only one owner of The Philosophy Forum and that's Jamalrob. The several moderators are all volunteers and do not have time to watch every word you say, let alone all the other people who may or may not be saying something objectionable. Like me, for example.
If you are lucky, other members will read your posts. If they happen to consider your comments out of order, they might flag your post. That's the extent of the panopticon.
...as far as the “panopticon” goes, I think I just posted a pretty good oversight of everything.
Being that there's no moral stigma associated with astigmatism, I think we're safe for the time being and can speak freely on this forum about our defects without fear of censure or bannisment. If astigmatism is ever associated with immorality in some way, and the issue is politicized, we might need to :zip: .
I just don't know the exact breakdown there.
Quoting praxis
I'm not here to call you out for not being PC. I'm just curious as to where you draw the line. Is a tall person being bad at limbo a deficiency? Should everyone be able to limbo under a certain height? If we 're going to call short people deficient then why not tall people?
One’s sexuality is often considered to be a major part of their identity, much more so than astigmatism, for example. People with astigmatism have never been persecuted or ridiculed due to this...condition. Therefore, it’s very different to be considered defective due to astigmatism versus homosexuality.
I wonder had the OP used a different word than “defect” (i.e. disorder, maladaptive, etc.) if the thread would have been deleted?
Regardless, I find excessive complaining about a deletion to be distasteful. Questioning is one thing, but arguing is not only pointless, it reeks of entitlement and arrogance. At the end of the day, we are all guests in another person’s home. We should respect their rules, or kindly show ourselves the way out. We have no right to request them to change or bend their rules on our account.
We identify deficiencies and defects for different reasons. Defects can be found just about anywhere and the world can be seen as perfect with no defects at all. It depends on intent and purpose, I suppose, or the lack of them.
When considering homosexuality as a defect I find myself trying to think of problems it may cause to anyone effected by it and possible solutions to whatever problems there may be. One issue could be that gay people can’t have biological children with same sex romantic partners. Probably no perfect solution for that but working on surrogate fathers/mothers or adoption availability may help to provide relief. In the bigger picture, if more gay people in society means fewer children, then the world would benefit from an increased gay population and the ‘defect’ could be seen as an asset.
On the dark side of considering it a defect, some may see it as such in order to shun or subjugate. Absurd, considering that whatever issues there may be with it they pale in comparison with more common human defects.
This language is so fucking vile, for fucks sake. 'Effected by homosexuality'? Like what, a fucking virus? Does anyone speak of being 'effected by heterosexuality'? Fuck right off. This is why we don't allow threads 'considering homosexuality as a defect', because it leads to utter fucking trash like this.
And I said it once and I will say it for the last time, you want to continue this discussion I will remove you from this fucking forum without blinking I do not give a shit who you are.
Like what I mentioned. We all got virus problems now.
Ban away, by the way, if I’m too vile.
Every day and age has its Cephaluses, it’s representatives of authority. In ours, authority is certainly not based on ancestral or traditional beliefs, as it was in ancient and primitive societies; it is based rather on the principles of advanced egalitarianism, which seeks to make certain classes of human beings, ones often quite differentiated, at least apparently by nature, perfectly equal.
For our society to work it is imperative that the citizenry believe the deductions drawn from these principles of equality and adhere to them in speech and in deed. It was no different for the citizens of Ancient Athens. It was dangerous for Socrates and for his interlocutors to question the ancestral beliefs, just as it is dangerous for us now to question the foundations of equality. It may be unlikely now that we risk our lives in doing so, but we certainly risk our livelihoods; we may not be banished from Rome, but we can certainly be banished from an internet “philosophy” forum.
I think you’ve said it more than once actually, so I’ve had ample warning. Also, I honestly don’t think what I wrote is vile so will likely post more atrocious thoughts in the future, and I’m not a valuable forum contributor anyway. So if you don’t ban me I can only assume that you don’t actually believe what I wrote is vile.
Stigmatizing homosexuals like that isn' t OK, just like it wouldn't be OK to suggest someone was "affected" by being a woman or being black etc etc and then ponder the problems with that as if it were an illness or whatever. Anyway, let's finish this up. I think the feedback function has been completed here.
I did not stigmatize, and I can only envy the enlightened society that you guys live in where being a black or gay is a complete non-issue.
What are the problems it may cause for these people?
EDIT: Scratch that, nevermind responding. I didn't read your post the first time because I just stopped reading after the first couple sentence because I had no idea what you were talking about. Then when others commented I became kinda interested over the outrage but never finished reading your initial post, but I went back and read it and your answer is unbelievable so just disregard this.
Some gay people consider not being able to have children (two guys, no pregnancy), and generally not having children, to be one of the major advantages of homosexual relationships. No children, maybe no house with a picket fence to paint and grass to mow, and all that. Live in the city; spend one's extra no-child cash on culture or beer or whatever. These days some people probably think that childless homosexual relationships are an unhappy failure. Screw that.
Before gay advocates ran out of compelling civil rights issues and decided to normalize gay marriage, a lot of us weren't (and still are not) interested in marriage. It isn't that we don't want to, or can't make deep and lasting commitments; we do and we can. The idea was that the relationship would last because the couple just decided to keep it going, and nothing more than that was deemed necessary.
Is homosexuality a defect? Lots of people think it is. I accept that, and hold them free to think what they want as long as they don't "frighten the horses" -- e.g., cause a public uproar. (some grand dame in the early 20th century said she didn't care what homosexuals did as long as they didn't frighten the horses.)
My idea of a workable society is one which is tolerant enough to allow people to do stuff that scandalizes socially and morally brittle people, as long as they are reasonably discreet. So wife-swapping clubs are OK as long as the swapping is conducted tastefully behind closed doors. Prostitutes can ply their trade as long as they don't stop traffic, and conduct their business according to safer sex guidelines. Jehovah's Witnesses can knock on everybody's door and offer everyone the Watch Tower magazine as long as they don't do it more than once a month, and don't insist on a long conversation. Homosexuals can cruise the parks as long as they don't make a lot of noise and don't damage the bushes.