Homosexuality

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

DH, I don't really understand how evolution is relevant.

Without evolution, we would be cavemen. It's very relevant.

 

[Dre89]

Without evolution, we would be cavemen. It's very relevant.

Supposing evolution is true, then the nature of the caveman would be different to the nature of the current human.

It's no different with animals. You wouldn't have a problem with me saying that all male lions act in a similar manner because of their nature, yet lions also supposedly evolved.

Evolution doesn't really change much in terms of this argument, because as far as I can see, even if our nature has changed, it still doesn't cater for sexual activity outside of the procreation act.

 

[Sucumbio]

In mature males, wet dreams occur as a result of an extended period without ejaculation. If anything, this just further strengthens my point that it is natural to ejaculate.

Well ok, but I wasn't saying it's unnatural? I was saying "feeling pleasure is not required to achieve ejaculation in males. For that matter neither is stimulation..."

Your premise is that pleasure is naturally meant to entice people to have heterosexual sex, because ejaculation is the end result. My counter is that pleasure is meant to entice people to have any type of sex (including masturbation, or sex with yourself), despite ejaculation being the end result.

As for sexual gratification found outside of ejaculation, I would say that is a corruption of what's natural.

Unless you're a virgin you should know that sex feels good from the get-go. So there's gratification during the entire act, from the point of origin (getting horny) to completion. This cannot be a corruption of what is natural.

Secondly, the pleasure in enjoying foreplay may be so intense that it may lead one to ejaculation, where the desire for foreplay will cease.

Ah ok, well then you DO understand, though ...

So let me ask you this, suppose ejaculation occurs, does the male still desire foreplay immediately after? No, because the ejaculation has occurred. Foreplay is merely what leads to ejauclation in this individual case.

Yes, this is normally true, and some will say that lesbian sex is nothing but tons of foreplay, technically. But that's usually a glib outlook, because females can orgasm multiple times, and for extended periods of times, so the lesbian sex act is still considered a complete act from initiation to completion.

In point of fact, can you explain why it is females do not shut down like males after orgasm?

Because humans can corrupt their own nature, that's what the power of reason gives us.

Ok, so you are saying that any human who engages in non-natural sex has corrupted their own nature because of their reason? I don't buy it one bit. Not only do homosexuals feel just as enamored with one another as heteros, but there's little evidence to support that reason plays a role in sex acts whatsoever. It's much more likely that sex acts are purely biological. What this would mean, is that to you, homosexuals would have to be "broken" somehow, because their biological necessity to procreate has them turned-on to the wrong gender.

Is that your claim?

Secondly, there needs to be sexual desire within the individual (without the female) for them to desire the sexual act.

If sexual desire could only occur with a female, then you'd need to be already having sex for the desire of sex to begin. Of course, If there is no desire for sex prior to the sex, what will incline one to have sex in the first place, if there is no desire?

So to me, it makes perfect biological sense that desire and ejauclation can occur without the female.

I apologize but I'll need you to re-word this whole thing. It just *zoom* right over my head ^^. Something about you need to desire sex to have sex? Oh wait I think I get it... you're saying that the absence of a female does not preclude sexual desire, it in fact reinforces it, and in some ways, is required. Ok, from a purely technical standpoint, you're correct. This however refutes nothing of what I was saying. Obviously a man won't wanna have sex w/a women unless he first desires to have sex w/a women

 

[abhishekh]

Wow.

I read like the first two pages, skimmed to page 20 then really didn't bother anymore.

A lot of this seems like a naturalistic fallacy to me (which a lot of people suggested).

If possible, could I see your argument to why homosexuality is wrong? As in, laying out each premise of your argument one after the other.

as in:

1. blahblahblah

2. blahblah blah

....

10. Homosexuality is wrong.

People have been trying to do it before, but you just ignored it (fair enough though, there's a lot of stuff for you to go through) or just pointed out what's wrong, but you haven't actually posted your own one.

Sorry if it's asking too much, I just feel it'd be easier for you to express your argument in this way.

 

[Dre89]

Well ok, but I wasn't saying it's unnatural? I was saying "feeling pleasure is not required to achieve ejaculation in males. For that matter neither is stimulation..."

Your premise is that pleasure is naturally meant to entice people to have heterosexual sex, because ejaculation is the end result. My counter is that pleasure is meant to entice people to have any type of sex (including masturbation, or sex with yourself), despite ejaculation being the end result.

Unless you're a virgin you should know that sex feels good from the get-go. So there's gratification during the entire act, from the point of origin (getting horny) to completion. This cannot be a corruption of what is natural.

The gratification is there to encourage you to continue, until you reach ejaculation.

Ah ok, well then you DO understand, though ...


Yes, this is normally true, and some will say that lesbian sex is nothing but tons of foreplay, technically. But that's usually a glib outlook, because females can orgasm multiple times, and for extended periods of times, so the lesbian sex act is still considered a complete act from initiation to completion.

In point of fact, can you explain why it is females do not shut down like males after orgasm?

Because she's not the one injecting an agent for procreation.

If a female has sex with A, then sex with B immediately after, she'll either produce no offspring, or the offspring of either A or B, not offspring of both.

The male participation is the ejaculation. The male lacks sexual desire until his 'gun has been re-loaded'. In a female, there is nothing to reload.

Ok, so you are saying that any human who engages in non-natural sex has corrupted their own nature because of their reason? I don't buy it one bit. Not only do homosexuals feel just as enamored with one another as heteros, but there's little evidence to support that reason plays a role in sex acts whatsoever. It's much more likely that sex acts are purely biological. What this would mean, is that to you, homosexuals would have to be "broken" somehow, because their biological necessity to procreate has them turned-on to the wrong gender.

Is that your claim?

Reason in humans is used for the good, but can also be used for evil as well. Our rational capacity explains why we can do unnatural things (such as ****, murder etc.). When I say unnatural, I mean inhumane, what humans are not naturally structured to do.

I don't consider homosexuals 'broken' so to speak. I consider the practice of homosexuality evil (not as in black-hearted evil, evil being any unnatural or immoral act, as little as lying to someone). Everyone does evils though, so it's not as if I consider homosexuals worse people or anything.

What I do consider them to be is sexually perverted. I don't mean that they're sickos, like pedophiles or anything, just that they've become sexually inclined towards sexual activity outside what sex is meant for.

I apologize but I'll need you to re-word this whole thing. It just *zoom* right over my head ^^. Something about you need to desire sex to have sex? Oh wait I think I get it... you're saying that the absence of a female does not preclude sexual desire, it in fact reinforces it, and in some ways, is required. Ok, from a purely technical standpoint, you're correct. This however refutes nothing of what I was saying. Obviously a man won't wanna have sex w/a women unless he first desires to have sex w/a women

Well then I don't see why you asked the question then.

I'm not saying gays aren't capable of love or anything like that.

The reason why we see homosexuality to be acceptable today is because the society itself has become somewhat corrupted in its principles. Due to mass urabnisation, our society has become so focused on the inidividual, not the community. It's all about what's best for you, not for your community.

But the reality is, that isn't human nature. Humans didn't originally exist that way. We began, evolution or not, in communities, where the first priority was the community, not yourself.

Let me ask you this, can a tribe of 100 people afford to have 30% of every generation be homosexual? The tribe wouldn't last very long.

This is what I try to get at with my moral system, what is natural. All my moral arguments are based on these original tribes. Everything I find immoral either wasn't around at those times (eg. contraception) meaning we aren't structured to do it (eg. casual sex) or would be of detriment to the community (eg. casual sex, homsoexuality etc.)

I hope people try to see what I'm trying to get at.

 

[abhishekh]

But the reality is, that isn't human nature. Humans didn't originally exist that way. We began, evolution or not, in communities, where the first priority was the community, not yourself.

Let me ask you this, can a tribe of 100 people afford to have 30% of every generation be homosexual? The tribe wouldn't last very long.

To be honest, nowadays, we can afford to have 30% of every generation to be homsexual. Heck, it'd be better in some countries (particularly the asian ones). Especially since the majority do end up adopting, which is always a good thing.

Plus there's also IVF, so if there really was a problem with under/aging population (which there is in some areas, but that's mostly being solved with immigration) it's not really going to be a big deal.

Kinda seems silly to compare the two either way. They didn't have modern technology either, is that immoral?

This is what I try to get at with my moral system, what is natural. All my moral arguments are based on these original tribes. Everything I find immoral either wasn't around at those times (eg. contraception) meaning we aren't structured to do it (eg. casual sex) or would be of detriment to the community (eg. casual sex, homsoexuality etc.)

I hope people try to see what I'm trying to get at.

It really does seem like one great big naturalistic fallacy.

You haven't explained why casual sex or homosexuality is of detriment to the community either. Or you probably have, but I wasn't very convinced or somebody else already refuted it.

You're not the person to decide what we are and aren't meant to do either.

 

[SuperBowser]

Let me ask you this, can a tribe of 100 people afford to have 30% of every generation be homosexual? The tribe wouldn't last very long.

I'm pretty sure this was refuted earlier. This example simply shows a poor understanding of biology. Can a tribe of 100 people afford 30 people with sickle cell disease? With asthma? With depression? With bipolar disease? With any polygenic or recessive condition? Clearly, we could because humans have survived quite fine with all these genetic variations.* There is no need to single out homosexuality because its prevalence was never high enough to warrant such situations.

You also assume that being gay offers no survival advantage. It's most likely that it plays little to no significant negative role in human survival or that it confers an advantage. Perhaps the genes that give a propensity for homosexuality provide gains in other areas: fertility, resistance against disease, personality traits, intelligence (I think gay people are smarter!). Remember, what we are talking about is polygenic. Therefore, all these traits can be passed to all offspring. While one child may be gay, their siblings will still possess these survival advantages; overall survival of the species will be improved.

And, of course, humans are social creatures. A gay person can contribute lots to his society and its survival even if they never have a child.

*I hope nobody reading will be offended by my comparison. I don't believe homosexuality is a disease at all.

 

[Dre89]

To be honest, nowadays, we can afford to have 30% of every generation to be homsexual. Heck, it'd be better in some countries (particularly the asian ones). Especially since the majority do end up adopting, which is always a good thing.

Plus there's also IVF, so if there really was a problem with under/aging population (which there is in some areas, but that's mostly being solved with immigration) it's not really going to be a big deal.

Kinda seems silly to compare the two either way. They didn't have modern technology either, is that immoral?

Modern technology obviously came later, that's the point. The original humans didn't have current technology, so we're not structured to function by morals that can only be upheld with such technology.

It really does seem like one great big naturalistic fallacy.

You haven't explained why casual sex or homosexuality is of detriment to the community either. Or you probably have, but I wasn't very convinced or somebody else already refuted it.

I explained we aren't naturally structured to do those things.

All humans have the same natural structure, that's what makes us human. What if every one was gay, or if everyone just had casual sex? (remember this is before contraception existed). Homosexuality and casual sex clearly don't fit into what we're naturally structured to do.

You're not the person to decide what we are and aren't meant to do either.

This is a debate hall.

By your logic, you're not the person to tell me I can't **** the girl down the street.

Besides, the whole point is that it isn't my individual reason making up the rules, it's nature. I don't chose what's natural.

Instead of just saying it's a naturalistic fallacy, make a contribution to the debate by telling me what's actually wrong with my argument, and why homosexuality should be permissable.

SuperBowser- Can an entire tribe be gay? All humans have the same human nature, that's what makes us human. To say being gay is natural is to say it can be universalised, which it can't. In fact, gays can only exist in harmony with heterosexuals, there needs to be heterosexuals for civilisation to continue.

Sexuality is what preserves the species, and is the only thing that does so. Therefore, it is the role of sexuality to preserve the species. How is it then that homosexuality, or any other sexual activity outside of the natural procreation act, are natural, if they do not do so?

Abhish, you should probably read the entire debate. Otherwise you're just going to accuse me of hating gay people like all pro gays do, as if that's their only defence of their argument, and as the arguer hating gays somehow makes the argument wrong. Just in case you don't make the same mistake, I don't hate gays, I've been friends with gays before. I'm not criticising the person, I'm criticisng the act.

In fact, people can't use the whole 'you can't say gays should abstain, how would you feel if bla bla bla' because I have to go through pretty much the exact same thing my theory asks of gay people, as well as preists and anyone else who believes sexual activity outside of the natural procreation atc in marriage is wrong.

So really, I'm not gay, but because I won't be getting married, I'm pretty much in the exact same boat as them (by my argument).

 

[Crimson King]

Saying "I have gay friends," while making the statements you do is equivalent to me saying "I have black friends," then ranting how they are lazy and criminals (I never understood how both could be the stereotype, since criminal activity requires action, ie. the opposite of lazy). In short, you are still a homophobe; just rationalizing it.

 

[abhishekh]

I explained we aren't naturally structured to do those things.

All humans have the same natural structure, that's what makes us human. What if every one was gay, or if everyone just had casual sex? (remember this is before contraception existed). Homosexuality and casual sex clearly don't fit into what we're naturally structured to do.

That's silly and you know it.

The fact of the matter is, not everyone is going to be gay or have just have casual sex. Similarly, not everyone is going become a doctor or a janitor.

With modern technology allowing gay people to have babies, you know that isn't relevant at all. Everyone couldn't be gay before, I concede that, and you probably could argue that not procreating (so not just being gay, but also being asexual plus other things) would have been detrimental to that society, but not anymore.

Abhish, you should probably read the entire debate. Otherwise you're just going to accuse me of hating gay people like all pro gays do, as if that's their only defence of their argument, and as the arguer hating gays somehow makes the argument wrong. Just in case you don't make the same mistake, I don't hate gays, I've been friends with gays before. I'm not criticising the person, I'm criticisng the act.

Call me Abhi.

Rofl, I'm not accusing you of hating anybody or anything. If anything, you're annoying me by assuming that everyone's going to hate you for taking a certain stance on something. It's just pretentious.

 

[Dre89]

Saying "I have gay friends," while making the statements you do is equivalent to me saying "I have black friends," then ranting how they are lazy and criminals (I never understood how both could be the stereotype, since criminal activity requires action, ie. the opposite of lazy). In short, you are still a homophobe; just rationalizing it.

By your own logic, you must hate all homophobes.

I can disagree with people and not hate them.

You assume my arguments stem from a prior dislike of homosexuals, when in fact I supported it until I thought about it for myself, leading me to disagree with it.

There are gays who think homosexuality is immoral. What do you say to them?

Saying you must hate gays to be anti gay is just a convenient straw man on your behalf.

 

[Crimson King]

I do dislike homophobes, correct.

 

[SuperBowser]

SuperBowser- Can an entire tribe be gay? All humans have the same human nature, that's what makes us human. To say being gay is natural is to say it can be universalised, which it can't. In fact, gays can only exist in harmony with heterosexuals, there needs to be heterosexuals for civilisation to continue.

Because of the way the genetics work, you would never get a whole tribe of gay people so it's kind of a non-issue. The gene for cystic fibrosis is present in roughly 1 in 20 Caucasians. This has always been the case. We do not worry about it increasing. Homosexuality will never reach such levels to make your question relevant.

Is Down's syndrome not natural? Or asthma? Or depression? I don't think I follow the definition of ''natural'' you use. It's certainly not how most understand the word. I don't believe something natural requires the ability to be universalised.

Sexuality is what preserves the species, and is the only thing that does so. Therefore, it is the role of sexuality to preserve the species. How is it then that homosexuality, or any other sexual activity outside of the natural procreation act, are natural, if they do not do so?

My previous post answers this. You need to look past a single act because that is not how our species survives. Even if I never have a child, I will likely contribute more than most to the survival of my species.

 

[Dre89]

CK I liked how you avoided all my questions, but you always do that so I'm not surprised.

Can I just ask though (not like you'll answer), but by always giving me unprovoked hostility because I haven't been influenced by the Enlightenment Period like you have, aren't you being just like the homophobes who do the same to gays?

Because of the way the genetics work, you would never get a whole tribe of gay people so it's kind of a non-issue. The gene for cystic fibrosis is present in roughly 1 in 20 Caucasians. This has always been the case. We do not worry about it increasing. Homosexuality will never reach such levels to make your question relevant.

We know sexuality is psychologically influenced, so yes it is conceivable that homosexuality could swell.

There have been tribes where obesity was considered sexually attractive. The fact that was only apparent in the tribes that endorsed it shows sexuality is psychologically influenced.

You're arguing that homosexuality is natural now. Well if it's natural, and they're not supposed to procreate, why do they ejaculate?

Also, what would be the evolutionary point of gays? They are just the same as everybody else, except they can't procreate. What would be the evolutionary purpose of someone like that?

Is Down's syndrome not natural? Or asthma? Or depression? I don't think I follow the definition of ''natural'' you use. It's certainly not how most understand the word. I don't believe something natural requires the ability to be universalised.

I don't consider down syndrome or asthma natural. They're unnatural in that they are a comprimised form of the human nature. That doesn't mean victims of it are evil, because it isn't a mroal evil, it wasn't a corruption through their own free choice.

My previous post answers this. You need to look past a single act because that is not how our species survives. Even if I never have a child, I will likely contribute more than most to the survival of my species.

I probably won't have a child either, and yes we can contribute, but we'll be the exception to the rule. The reality is, we're not role models, because our position can't be universalised.

The problem is, you're arguing that homosexuals serve an evolutionary purpose, yet they're just like normal humans but can't procreate. If certain humans were designed to be an exception to the rule (which they're not), they would have beneficial traits that ordinary humans don't, homsoexuals don't meet this critieria.

So you can argue for homsoexuality, but I don't think you can do it on evolutionary grounds.

 

[Crimson King]

CK I liked how you avoided all my questions, but you always do that so I'm not surprised.

Can I just ask though (not like you'll answer), but by always giving me unprovoked hostility because I haven't been influenced by the Enlightenment Period like you have, aren't you being just like the homophobes who do the same to gays?

Totally right! Because I am definitely denying you basic human rights and judging your entirely lifestyle publicly while condemning you to hell. Awesome argument, bro!

Homophobes and racists lose the privilege being respected for their opinions when their opinions can and do hurt people's rights as human beings.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

@CK and Dre

This is the PG. Remember that.

 

[Dre89]

Totally right! Because I am definitely denying you basic human rights and judging your entirely lifestyle publicly while condemning you to hell. Awesome argument, bro!

Homophobes and racists lose the privilege being respected for their opinions when their opinions can and do hurt people's rights as human beings.

You've just shown that you know nothing about me.

I don't condemn people to hell. Everyone here knows I don't believe in any religion and am critical of divine relelation and theology.

Just another proof of you straw-manning an argument that's different to yours.

The fact that you assume every anti gay must hate gay people, and must be religious shows that you're not open to genuine debate.

Also, you're using an emotional plea by saying I'm taking away the right of gays. The whole point of the debate is to decide whether gays have that right.

Besides, I won't be getting married, so I'm taking away that 'right' from myself too.

Funny, that you hate religion so much, yet the argument you're using actually came from religion.

So in reality, without realising it, you're applealing to religion more than me.

Btw, aren't you taking away the freedom of killers, rapists, and hardcore drug addicts? By your logic, you lose the privellage of being respected rfor your opinion because you're denying them the right to freedom.

 

[Sucumbio]

@CK and Dre

This is the PG. Remember that.

Yeah, well I'm the moderator here, not you Reason why me/dre ck/dre and any other smash debater/dre are arguing vehemently in this thread is because his argument is a cleverly concealed anti-gay slogan, which while seemingly intellectual could easily be construed as a violation of the SWF global rules.

Reason in humans is used for the good, but can also be used for evil as well. Our rational capacity explains why we can do unnatural things (such as ****, murder etc.). When I say unnatural, I mean inhumane, what humans are not naturally structured to do.

Ok, but this doesn't support your premise. Reason does not = why people have gay sex. People have gay sex because they're horny for members of the same sex. You're reading too much into the sex act itself. It's not as if a gay man sits down and thinks to himself "I want to have sex with a man today. I know it's wrong, but I can justify to myself because I was born in a big city, and my morals have been corrupted by the baser platitudes of 21st century man."

I don't consider homosexuals 'broken' so to speak. I consider the practice of homosexuality evil (not as in black-hearted evil, evil being any unnatural or immoral act, as little as lying to someone). Everyone does evils though, so it's not as if I consider homosexuals worse people or anything.

This is why I am in this debate. This line of reasoning is perhaps one of the most dangerous in history, and has led to some serious problems on Earth, like, I dunno WWII for example. Essentially, you have prescribed your own moral code (whether based on christian fundamentalism or something else, you have yet to reveal) and then expect others to follow, without talking to every gay person out there and telling them "hey by the way, you're gay, so you should know that you're violating my sense of right and wrong. in my eyes you're immoral, so watch it!" You see the issue? You can't just say gays are immoral because you say so. Nor can you justify your belief with some ham-handed logical train wreck like "well sex wasn't meant to be had but for procreation, so it -must- be wrong." Did YOU invent sex? No! You've used your intellect and reasoning to try and understand human mating practices, and concluded that sex must be for procreation and nothing else, so therefore anything sex is used for outside of it, is 'a violation of what's natural.'

The reason why we see homosexuality to be acceptable today is because the society itself has become somewhat corrupted in its principles. Due to mass urabnisation, our society has become so focused on the inidividual, not the community. It's all about what's best for you, not for your community.

I'll play your game. Attention citizens of the World: We need more homosexuals! Our population is steadily increasing to the point of exhaustion. Famine is widespread, our economy cannot support our welfare states. We need your help. Stop mating with the opposite sex! Become a homosexual ... today!

There, thinking only of the community. All you hetero's out there, stop thinking only of yourselves. ><

But the reality is, that isn't human nature. Humans didn't originally exist that way. We began, evolution or not, in communities, where the first priority was the community, not yourself.

Actually, we did -originally- exist as small bands of people. Literally handfuls. It wasn't until the formation of the Hunter/Gatherer society that communities such as what you refer to were formed. And there were gay sex practices then too, so ?

Let me ask you this, can a tribe of 100 people afford to have 30% of every generation be homosexual? The tribe wouldn't last very long.

I dunno, the Ancient Greeks had what you'd consider rampant homosexuality and this would be during the Golden Age of humanity, the pinnacle of thought and reason even arguably more civilized than today, though I won't discount the pagan rituals blighting their mark, but honestly, there's no correlation between have same-sex and the survival of your people, it's a non sexuiter. I know what I said.

This is what I try to get at with my moral system, what is natural. All my moral arguments are based on these original tribes. Everything I find immoral either wasn't around at those times (eg. contraception) meaning we aren't structured to do it (eg. casual sex) or would be of detriment to the community (eg. casual sex, homsoexuality etc.)

And I pity you for it.

 

[Dre89]

Yeah, well I'm the moderator here, not you Reason why me/dre ck/dre and any other smash debater/dre are arguing vehemently in this thread is because his argument is a cleverly concealed anti-gay slogan, which while seemingly intellectual could easily be construed as a violation of the SWF global rules.

What?

Why can't my opinion by genuine?

So it's ok to argue for gays, but as soon as you argue against them, all of a sudden I have some evil political gender that isn't allowed?

I'm getting sick of this. I was completely respectful of my opposition in this debate. I insulted no one personally, despite how often people decided to insult me simply because of my view.

Honestly, if I was the narrow-minded type who just hated gays, therefore said it was wrong, do you think I'd even bother with an argument as detailed as this? Do you think I'd even have the rational capacity to make such an argument?

What about my abortion and God arguments, and every other argument I made. Are they not genuine too? I bet not, I bet because they challenge modern norms they must be illegitmate, they, must be the result of narrow-minded bias, because no argument that challenges modern ideals can be genuine...

So basically, because you guys support homosexuality, as a result of the prominece of the social contract argument in modernity, any argument that challenges that must be narrow-minded, and must not be genuine?

Come on guys, I have given you guys the upmost respect, and have shown many times that I am open minded. Is it hard to have the curtousy reciprocated?

 

[Dre89]

Look guys, if you're going to assume that every anti-gay person is some narrow-minded, non-intellectual, simply because they have an argument that doesn't subscribe to Enlghtenment Period schools of thought, then there's no point me continuing here.

Apart from the fact it's the PG, if my intellectual freedom isn't going to be respected, all this is going to do is cause more trouble.

CK, I can't stop you from insulting me, but I don't want to argue. I'd rather we just respect our differences and have civilised debate in the future.

People can keep debating in this thread, but I just ask that you don't bring me or my arguments into the discussion. Thanks in advance.

 

[Sucumbio]

What?

Why can't my opinion by genuine?

Because honestly, no one thinks the way you do on this issue without either being very mislead or very naive or both.

So it's ok to argue for gays, but as soon as you argue against them, all of a sudden I have some evil political gender that isn't allowed?

Well... yeah? You're not going to 'argue against gays' and get away with it. That's like arguing against blacks, or cripples, or any other "group" of people. It's just not allowed, not on SWF, and not in any civilized debate, either. Intolerance is what it is, and no matter how you rationalize it or mask it, it's still the same thing: intolerance.

Plus:

The main porpuse of this thread is to discuss what would happen if homosexuality becomes illegal in other countries.

This thread was meant to explore the impacts of making homosexuality illegal in other countries, based on what's evident in Uganda. It was not meant to be a place to argue for or against homosexuality in general. To do that is to invite exactly what we have now, an unpalatable series of posts that any gay person would read and immediately say "oh, so Dre.'s homophobic." Is that what you'd want?

Honestly, if I was the narrow-minded type who just hated gays, therefore said it was wrong, do you think I'd even bother with an argument as detailed as this? Do you think I'd even have the rational capacity to make such an argument?

The fact that you've gone out on a limb to intellectualize your intolerance makes you far more dangerous than your normal gay-basher. People like you end up passing the laws like the one in Uganda, because you're able to convince people that somehow gays are unnatural. Lets not mince words, it doesn't matter how you've defined "evil" or "natural" for yourself or the purposes of your argument. You're still saying gays are "evil" and that gay sex is "unnatural" and that's just plain unacceptable. You speak of community, well think of the community you're posting in. How's a poster supposed to feel by seeing your words? Should they suddenly repent? Posters have a right to participate in SWF without the presence of bigotry or racism, and your stance is in violation of this, even if you didn't intend it to be.

What about my abortion and God arguments, and every other argument I made. Are they not genuine too? I bet not, I bet because they challenge modern norms they must be illegitmate, they, must be the result of narrow-minded bias, because no argument that challenges modern ideals can be genuine...

No need to be childish, if you'd stop and think about what you're saying you'd realize -why- bashing gays is not acceptable. It doesn't matter how you dress it up, calling gays "evil" is just not cool.

So basically, because you guys support homosexuality, as a result of the prominece of the social contract argument in modernity, any argument that challenges that must be narrow-minded, and must not be genuine?

It's frankly irrelevant why we either tolerate or accept homosexuality in society. The fact is we're not condoning it. We're not not condoning it either. You on the other hand, or flat out calling it evil and unnatural. And I realize you've apologized for your statement by equipping with disclaimers (I don't mean evil like blah blah blah) but that honestly changes nothing.

 

[Dre89]

I'm not against gay people, Im against homosexuality, there's a difference.

Being against blacks is being against a person. Being against homosexuality is being against an action.

You say I'm ignorant, so are you saying anyone who doesn't subscribe to enlightenment philosophy is ignorant? Because that's where modern morality comes from.

It's convenient for you to say my argument is not genuine. So you're saying no one who argues against homosexuality can be intelligent ir good willed? You're doing the exact same thing as the homophobes.

 

[Dre89]

You're trying to straw man my argument by claiming I'm saying you're a bad person for being gay, which is not what I'm saying.

It's like abortion. I think abortion is wrong, but I don't hate people who've done it, I've been friends with them before. How is this any different?

So are you saying we can't say abortion is wrong now?

There's a difference between criticising a person and an action.

What about addictions? I can't say they're wrong? Do I hate a drug addict because I think the addiction is wrong?

What's the difference?

 

[spookyskeptic]

CK I liked how you avoided all my questions, but you always do that so I'm not surprised.

I've read most of this debate and you've made that same assertion multiple times, but the only person I've seen avoiding questions is yourself. To make matters worse, you obviously don't understand the definitions of objective and subjective. Of course, that's irrelevant because you frequently interpret the meanings of words differently to suit your needs. You've done this within single sentences. If, as some have postulated, the purpose of the PG is to develop debate skills and cohesive arguments, you've failed miserably. Thanks for playing, however, but I'm afraid the only parting gift you've been given is a thorough schooling by the other posters in this thread.

Now, for a quick definition moment. Subjective is based on the interpretation of the available information. Two people could watch a video of a crime. One could say, subjectively, that the perpetrator looked mean. The other could say he looked nervous. It's subjective. They would both observe and point, objectively, that the person was wearing shoes. Subjective is open to interpretation and objective is based in tangible, quantifiable facts.

You have yet to say how exclusively procreational sex is an objective good. It is a subjective good, but, again, I don't think you know the meanings of the words subjective and objective. I could make a very strong argument that procreational sex is, in reality, wrong due to the actions our species has taken over our history. That, however, would lead to a whole new set of irrelevant issues such as environmentalism and a possible invocation of Godwin's law. I don't think anyone wants that.

I've also noticed that you vary between outright calling other posters ignorant or stupid and just implying that they are. Even if some are, at least they're arguing in good faith and not continually moving the goalpost, so to speak. Of course, I haven't seen anyone that I'd describe as stupid in this topic. I have seen one that I'd describe as illogical and I'd most certainly use a certain colorful bit of phraseology regarding male bovines. I might also use the word troll, but that would mean that the other posters were dumb enough to fall for a troll. I'm giving the benefit of the doubt

In the same post I quoted above, you conceded that asthma and other inherited conditions are "unnatural" because they're not the norm. That's incorrect when one considers that genetic variation and it's frequent mutations are very much natural. You also excuse said genetic conditions from debate on their morality because they're not active choices. Well, sir, neither is homosexuality. I didn't just wake up one morning and say, "You know what, Spook? I think I like the boobies better than the pecs!" I grew up in a stable, two-parent household with positive role models from both genders. There are no environmental factors to it, so it's only my biology. It is just how my body's programmed.

I can see it now, not necessarily from you, but I can still see someone posting "But pedophiles make the same argument!" They do, but science proves it wrong. Most pedophiles don't even engage in what would be defined as "intercourse" with kids. They try to force the child into performing sexual acts or they just lewdly fumble about. In these cases, it's more about the power aspect than about sexual arousal. In that sense, it's similar to ****. In the case of an actual physical attraction to children, it should be noted that differences in brain activity have been noted in pedophiles that haven't been noted in heterosexual or homosexual adults. Also, in these cases, there is frequent comorbidity of several other serious illnesses that affect personality and impulse control. In both forms, however, compulsive behavior is demonstrated and it's more akin to drug abuse than it is anything else.

If anyone wants to check out this stuff, there's lot of info on Wikipedia, WebMD, and a host of health and science sites that have been covering the introduction of the new Diagnostic and Statistic Manual of Mental Disorders.

I'll be back with more later, but I can all ready see the TL;DR replies, lol. Besides, I still have several more pages of Dre's bloviation to read.

 

[Dre89]

I've explained numerous times I don't think gays are evil, or at least any more evil than anyone else is. I just think the act is an evil.

Spooky apart from all the accusations I liked what you said. You have my backing for DH nomination.

When have I implied people were ignorant? I totally respect your side of the argument, I dont think it's stupid at all. I apologise if I came across that way.

I can't answer all the questions because there's too many.

I consider asthma etc bad because they are a deteoration of health, that's all. I don't consider them lesser people.

I never said gays chose to be gay. That doesnt affect my argument.

Seriously why is everybody attacking me? When did I ever insult anyone? Why is it that because the argument is against homosexuality, it must be biased and not genuine?

How is criticising the act of homosexuality different from criticising that of a drug addict? You don't have to hate druggists to hate the addiction, it's the same with homosexuality.

Can someone explain the difference please? I don't get it.

 

[abhishekh]

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog.../could-homosexual-genes-be-naturally-selected

Found this article the other day, I thought it was interesting and somewhat relevant.

What about addictions? I can't say they're wrong? Do I hate a drug addict because I think the addiction is wrong?

What's the difference?

Drug addictions harm people, cloud their judgment and effect other people.

Homosexuality doesn't do anything like that.

I've explained numerous times I don't think gays are evil, or at least any more evil than anyone else is. I just think the act is an evil.

It's a shame what I think is love, you think is evil.

 

[Dre89]

I didn't say it wasn't love. A man can truly be in love with another man.

Then again, a man can be in love with a child or animal, so love alone doesn't make it right.

I probably shouldn't use the word evil. People probably think I mean as severe as murder or ****. I should just say immoral ir wrong.

 

[spookyskeptic]

It's not that you can't answer the questions, Dre, it's that you won't because you don't even believe your own b.s. It's also really hard to have a debate with someone that keeps editing their posts to make it look like he didn't post things that he keeps getting called on, which is cheating and lying. That would be, objectively, immoral.

To further Abhi's point about addiction being harmful, but homosexuality isn't: If I have sex with a woman, that's just us. It's effects are only on us and those effects are awesome. Dre, you should really try it. Might loosen you up a bit. Now, if I go out and buy a bag of meth, I'm hurting myself and the community. The methamphetamines had to get cooked by someone, who was endangered by the act. Property damage was likely incurred during the manufacture and everyone in the area was put in danger because of the chemicals used.

That's the difference.

It's a huge difference.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Yeah, well I'm the moderator here, not you

What's wrong with some mini-modding?

Dre, you're the one ignoring points. You stubbornly cling on to your argument "well it's not natural"

 

[Dre89]

What posts am I editing?

I don't go back and edit posts to cover up mistakes, that's just low.

DH, so because I still think my argument is correct I'm ignoring posts?

I could just say your guilty of the same thing because you haven't changed your mind either.

I can sort of accept the distinction with the drug addict, in that it's causing physical harm.

However, that's assuming that physical harm is the only grounds on which intervention is justified, which is debateable.

Despite the insults and accusations, I do actually think Sucumbios and Spookys arguments have been quite good.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

No. You're ignoring posts and clinging to your argument.

 

[abhishekh]

I didn't say it wasn't love. A man can truly be in love with another man.

Then again, a man can be in love with a child or animal, so love alone doesn't make it right.

I probably shouldn't use the word evil. People probably think I mean as severe as murder or ****. I should just say immoral or wrong.

Love for a child ("in that way") or animal is harmful for the animal and the child, homosexuality harms -no one-.

Yeah, evil does seem a bit harsh. Though I know what you mean by it when you say it, my fault for forgetting.

 

[Sucumbio]

I'm not against gay people, Im against homosexuality, there's a difference.

Being against blacks is being against a person. Being against homosexuality is being against an action.

And the penny drops. It took me a few posts, and then some brow beating, for which I apologize, but here you've finally come out and just said it.

Well, this is why you've been called a homophobe, Dre. There is no difference, you see. Just like being against blacks is no different than being against blackness. Whatever that even means, I mean, you don't see the absurdity of what you've said, here? How are you supposed to take the homo out of the gay? Surgery? Clever word play? You can't be not against gays and simultaneously be against their -way of life- it doesn't work that way. If you don't condone homosexuality, then you have something against gay people.

You say I'm ignorant, so are you saying anyone who doesn't subscribe to enlightenment philosophy is ignorant? Because that's where modern morality comes from.

Well honestly, I think you're just throwing out buzz words as you learn them in your college classes. As you encroach on new territory you attempt to apply it. But see above.

It's convenient for you to say my argument is not genuine. So you're saying no one who argues against homosexuality can be intelligent ir good willed? You're doing the exact same thing as the homophobes.

*sigh* you never did tell me whether or not English was your first language. I think I need an answer, please. It'll go a long way to helping me understand you. Your argument IS genuine, -that's the scary part-. You really believe what you're saying. You really don't see the problem in believing this way. You really think it's okay. It's going to take a serious life-altering event for you to change your mind. Perhaps your child is gay. Or some other family member. And if so, what will you think? Well I have nothing against them, just the way they have sex. Good luck with that.

You're trying to straw man my argument by claiming I'm saying you're a bad person for being gay, which is not what I'm saying.

No, you're saying they're Dre-evil. Why even say that? Just say they're like everyone else. People.

It's like abortion. I think abortion is wrong, but I don't hate people who've done it, I've been friends with them before. How is this any different?

Hey YOU said hate, not me. Ask yourself, lol. How IS it different, Dre.? What's different between being okay with someone who's had an abortion, and looking down on abortion, and being friends with a gay person, and looking down on gayness. Sounds pretty much the same to me, sounds insane too. I think we call that 2-faced. Yep. 2-faced.

There's a difference between criticising a person and an action.

See above. You can't separate the gay sex act from the gay person. Sorry, that's not real life.

What about addictions? I can't say they're wrong? Do I hate a drug addict because I think the addiction is wrong?

What's the difference?

Being a drug addict is nothing like being a homosexual. One is a choice, the other is not. This is the second reason why you've been called a homophobe, because you somehow don't know that it isn't a choice, you honestly believe it is a choice. As if somehow gay people just decide, oh well I think I'll have sex with a member of the same sex today.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

Just throwing that in here.

 

[SuperBowser]

My dog decided to walk on my laptop. I think things got moved around a little but all your quotes should be intact.

We know sexuality is psychologically influenced, so yes it is conceivable that homosexuality could swell.

Please define your understanding of ''sexuality''. Is one man's leather fetish comparable to another man's attraction to females? I do not think so. I am confident my attraction to females is largely biological . It's an interesting topic and I don't know if there is a ''right'' answer but perhaps we will fall into confusion here without some clarification.

Like most states of the mind, psychological, environmental and genetic factors all appear to play a role. However, genetics must provide the predisposition. I have provided detailed explanations and sources on this already. Unlike, say depression, I put forward psychological/social factors play a relatively small role in development of our sexuality (attraction to gender) and in unknown ways. Genetic factors and uncontrollable environmental factors (e.g. conditions during fetal growth) will likely determine whether most of us become heterosexual or homosexual. Attraction to gender does not appear reversible in the slightest.

You're arguing that homosexuality is natural now. Well if it's natural, and they're not supposed to procreate, why do they ejaculate?

I don't consider down syndrome or asthma natural. They're unnatural in that they are a comprimised form of the human nature. That doesn't mean victims of it are evil, because it isn't a mroal evil, it wasn't a corruption through their own free choice

I do not see a problem here. Every aspect of the human body and mind is variable. Of course, many of these variations are not amenable to life so we do not witness them. In homosexuality, a person's attraction may be different but the rest of their body is the same. It is not surprising they ejaculate; there is no need to answer the question of ''why''.

I would describe asthma as natural. We therefore reach the point we always become stuck on. I've yet to hear a satisfactory definition of the term ''natural''. The definition you seem to operate under is far from the accepted norm. As things stand, this allows you to make any claim you like. You now enter the realm of science and evolution with your term, ''natural''! Things are confused further because not only do I believe your understanding of evolution to be lacking but it is difficult to address this as you always fall back on to your coveted definition of ''natural''.

Also, what would be the evolutionary point of gays? They are just the same as everybody else, except they can't procreate. What would be the evolutionary purpose of someone like that?

The problem is, you're arguing that homosexuals serve an evolutionary purpose, yet they're just like normal humans but can't procreate. If certain humans were designed to be an exception to the rule (which they're not), they would have beneficial traits that ordinary humans don't, homsoexuals don't meet this critieria.


So you can argue for homsoexuality, but I don't think you can do it on evolutionary grounds.

Oh, I definitely can. Biology is kind of my strong point! I have addressed your concerns in my previous post. I'm happy to debate my previous assertions. As it stands, I believe I've adequately shown why it is intellectually dishonest to argue homosexuality is at odds with evolution. Abhishek has conveniently provided a source for me; evolution is not as simplistic as you make it out.

I probably won't have a child either, and yes we can contribute, but we'll be the exception to the rule. The reality is, we're not role models, because our position can't be universalised.

I might adopt one day. Either way, I'll only consider having a kid when I'm much, much older.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

@Dre I am just curious about something, people have said that this is a naturalistic fallacy. Can you explain why it is not, I presume that because you are still using the same argument that you do not believe it to be a naturalistic fallacy?

 

[Dre89]

We'll just take this over to the DH version.

There's a million things I should to respond to here, but the one I will say is that Sucumbio, I never said homosexuality was a choice. Whether it is or isn't doesn't affect my argument in the slightest.

We'll continue this in the DH now.

 

[spookyskeptic]

Whether it is or isn't doesn't affect my argument in the slightest.

Whether it is or isn't actually does affect your argument. If isn't it a choice, then it is natural.

The only reason you're going to the DH is because you've lost here.

 

[Dre89]

Whether it is or isn't actually does affect your argument. If isn't it a choice, then it is natural.

No, I've explained the difference between naturally good and just any impulse

The only reason you're going to the DH is because you've lost here.

Please, there's no need for needless insults like this. I never insulted you.

 

[abhishekh]

Well, it sucks for us because we can no longer post or contribute.

Why not just keep it here? Answer what you can, and if someone thinks you've skipped over something important, they'll remind you.