| 
I'm going to go to the first page of posts and address them, specifically from the author of the thread who is obviously encouraging pure unbiased healthy discussion:
1. First and foremostly, I'd like to point out that this is mainly a discussion for entertainment purposes for I feel that homosexuals and their naturally deviant behaviour is not a priority in the scheme of destructive deviant behaviour that exists in this day and age. Putting aside more pressing issues, lets examine the question: Why Condone Fruitless Deviant Behaviour?
2. Assumably, homosexuals do not choose to be homosexuals. This is lead by my understanding that everyone on the planet is somewhat homosexual (ie, can be attracted to both males and females given the proper freedom and stimulus), that people are born with this level of base attraction and it is then repressed or harnessed by the effects of societal expectation, and most importantly that even repressed homosexuals that lead successful lives that do not wish to be gay cannot avoid the reality that they are.
3. I find the statistics of homosexuals and their criminal nature to be very unconclusive because being a homosexual brings about far more destructive influences in this society than the actual nature of their attraction does. What I mean is, a homosexual and his/her attraction to a same sex partner will bring about far more negative feelings and reactions from within, but not due to the attraction itself, but how it is viewed by society, moreso traditionally than nowadays.
4. It is arguable that homosexuals have been naturally created to control the population growth of a society. This is re-enforced by the fact that homosexuals have existed in every independant and unique society since the beginning of time, indicating that their nature is brought upon by genetics rather than society. If it is brought upon by genetics, then genetically we have evolved into a state where our DNA naturally randomly created these sexual "deviants" for some purpose. That purpose could be population control, the diversification of societal partnerships, or a variety of other things.
5. Homosexuality, if accepted socially and welcommed as warmly as heterosexuality, would, according to the information I have received thus far, result in no increased destructive behaviour. I firmly believe that a majority of the destructive, criminal, or anti-social habits that homosexuals may partake in is due to the societal pressures placed upon homosexuals for their nature rather than their nature itself. This cannot be proven or diss-proven, however since homosexuals have traditionally been outcasted from societies and degraded, it logically leads to a more conclusive answer about why they may be statistically more destructive than the easily accepted heterosexuals in society.
6. The concept of a homosexual being homosexual for the ease of empathy is quite a stretch to me. It is possible that there is an advantage since both partners could be more hormonally in tune with one another, but other than that I would say the concept of men liking men because they are similar is like saying I should have more male friends because I am a male. Conversely, it is possible that it is more difficult for men to live with men and women to live with women for they will not complete each others' personalities in the way a man and women would. Hence, either it is more difficult for homosexuals to live with their partners, or each partners assumes the mentality of the "woman" and "man", even if their bodies don't match. I do not view this as deviant behaviour, for many heterosexual couples swap the parts each partner plays on a continuous basis, as well as the fact that many women lead their heterosexual partnership, just as many men do.
7. Socially, I do feel that homosexuals naturally differ from heterosexuals in solely the act of sex. Not all homosexual men are feminine, and not all homosexual women are manly. It is entirely plausible, according to me, for homosexual couples to interract freely with heterosexual couples with a comfortable degree of natural empathy.
In conclusion, therefore, I will say three main things:
a) Homosexuals are not forged by society but rather born into it.
b) Homosexuals and their seemingly destructive behaviour is more likely to have been brought upon by society rather than their homosexuality.
c) Heterosexuals and homosexuals differ only in the act of sex and reproduction. I find little difference between a heterosexual couple that cannot have children and a homosexual couple. Stating that homosexuals enjoy the freedom of not having to pro-create is as reasonable as saying a heterosexual couple that can not have children enjoys the perks of their sexual and societal freedom. If anything, society should feel compassionate towards both these parties for their innability to pro-create.
"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."
|
Which is more likely to permit a more natural purpose and fruitful existence of such a thing. 
"Heterosexuality is no more beneficial to heterosexuals, than homosexuality is beneficial to homosexuals."