<My belief that homosexuality is a dysfunction doesn't make
me a bigot >
My desktop dictionary defines dysfunction this way: incomplete or impaired functioning of a body part or organ.
We've agreed that on average male gays probably use their sexual apparatuses (apparati?) more than male heteros, and I imagine that lesbians use theirs about as often as hetero women.
You can argue that their sexual activity doesn't produce offspring, but surely you wouldn't want to go down a path that requires you to describe the sex lives of all individuals whose sex doesn't produce offspring as 'dysfunctional'? That of condom-users? Of oral sex aficionados? Of post menopausal women? Of sex toy fans? Of pregnant women?
I think sexual dysfunction would be if they couldn't come, not if they decided not to procreate, or couldn't. That would be called reproductive dysfunction, I think.
Of course there are those who believe that sex is, or should be, only used for reproduction, but I don't believe you are among them, are you?
If you look at the organism as the mass of humanity, you could argue that given overpopulation, the reproductive 'dysfunction' is to keep having sex that makes new babies. You could look at a woman with five children she can't support or care for adequately but who keeps on getting pregnant as reproductively dysfunctional. Or, if you insist, as sexually dysfunctional. In fact, on an overpopulated planet, who's to say it isn't the gays who are functioning well and the straights who are playing Russian roulette?
|
