What's wrong with homosexuality Why do you object?

The reasons why people oppose homosexuality are as follows: homosexuality is a crime; Homosexuality is immoral;

Homosexuality is a disease; Homosexuality is a sexual pervert.

There is no special provision on homosexuality in the criminal law, and it is often the police station and defense team members who intervene in homosexuals, mainly to maintain public order. Therefore, whether homosexuality is regarded as a crime or a mistake in law is always a vague thing. In many countries, even if homosexuality violates the law, the police will not take the initiative to arrest homosexuals, because homosexual activities are private affairs between individuals, do not involve violence or property, and have no obvious harm to the public, so the police are unwilling to interfere.

We believe that punishing homosexuality as a crime is not only unreasonable in logic, but also difficult to overcome in practice. This is because a fixed proportion of people in the population have homosexual tendencies, and it is obviously unreasonable to regard them as criminals.

So homosexuality is a crime, which can only be based on a certain religious or ideological dogma, and there is no evidence in real life.

Some homosexuals feel great psychological pressure, and some of them want to correct their homosexual tendencies. It is right to treat these people as patients, but this does not prove that homosexuality itself is a disease, but a psychological problem caused by the inability of some homosexuals to adapt to the pressure of the surrounding environment. Moreover, more homosexuals feel good about themselves, adapt well to the surrounding environment and don't want to see a doctor at all. The former specialist told us that if homosexuals refused to correct themselves and were forced to come for treatment (forced by family members or police), they could not be treated. Among the homosexuals he took care of, only 15% were really corrected, and even fewer of them could persist in treatment. From this point of view, treating homosexuality as a disease in general cannot be established in practice. Many homosexuals not only refuse to seek medical treatment, but also regard homosexuality as an indispensable part of life. Such people are mentally sound and gentle, and it is obviously against the principle of medical humanity for hospitals to impose compulsory treatment on them. Therefore, it is wrong to treat homosexuality as a disease.

Regarding homosexuality, we think that some homosexuals are obviously immoral in one thing, that is, they are married and hide the truth from their wives and their homosexual tendencies. Some of these homosexuals admit that they are immoral in this matter. Besides, we haven't found any reason to prove that homosexuality is immoral.

The view that homosexuality is a sexual abnormal phenomenon can only show that homosexual behavior is in a minority position in many ways of sexual release. This is a fact that everyone knows, and it has no more meaning. If someone insists that perverts are disgusting, they can only think that this is his personal opinion and the public does not have to agree with it. Left-handed, nearsighted and even extremely beautiful women are abnormal in the eyes of ordinary people, so they will not become disgusting. If someone insists that these people are disgusting, we don't have to agree with them. It can be safely said that homosexuality is a natural and normal sexual orientation belonging to a small number of human beings.

I don't agree with the saying that homosexuality goes against nature upstairs.

Overcrowding will reduce the birth rate of animals, which can be seen in Richard Dawkins.

In the discovery of selfish genes, this book records such an interesting experiment:

"In one experiment, rats were placed in an open-air paddock and a lot of food was put in.

Let them breed freely. The number of rats increased to a certain extent and then stabilized.

This stability was initially due to too many mice, which reduced the fertility of female mice: they had fewer young mice.

Yes Such results are often reported. "In addition to the decline in fertility, there are many peels in biology.

Bees are a typical example of taking away individuals' reproductive rights to maintain the survival of species. honey

Bees are social animals. In the bee kingdom, the queen bee is the only fertile female.

Sex individuals, as well as workers who collect pollen, brew honey, build hives and raise young bees, although they also

They are all female bees, but because they are not fed royal jelly, their gonads are underdeveloped, so a bee

Most bees in the nest are infertile. Bees actually use the main body of the colony to

In order to collect resources and energy, not for fertility, this virtually controls fertility.

System. The queen bee can be regenerated, and the worker bees cannot be born together, but the pollen is limited after all.

Can feed a limited number of bees, and bees have formed a life that makes most individuals infertile in the process of evolution.

Mode, in order to facilitate the survival of species. Homosexuality is not conducive to fertility, but it does not mean homosexuality.

There is no evolutionary significance. Could it be a kind of control that organisms actively reduce population fertility?

What about the system? /question/ 17933682.html？ si= 1